<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2002 (8) TMI 572 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106425</link>
    <description>A special statute conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the Debts Recovery Tribunal for recovery of bank debts requires disputes connected with a letter of credit to be left to that forum. A letter of credit is a separate commercial contract requiring strict compliance with its terms, and related defences such as fraud, irretrievable injustice, or non-compliance may be raised before the Tribunal. Because the bank debt claim and any insurance claim arose from different causes of action, and the statutory scheme excludes civil court jurisdiction while providing for transfer of pending matters to the Tribunal, transfer to the High Court was not justified. The request for transfer was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=143459" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (8) TMI 572 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106425</link>
      <description>A special statute conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the Debts Recovery Tribunal for recovery of bank debts requires disputes connected with a letter of credit to be left to that forum. A letter of credit is a separate commercial contract requiring strict compliance with its terms, and related defences such as fraud, irretrievable injustice, or non-compliance may be raised before the Tribunal. Because the bank debt claim and any insurance claim arose from different causes of action, and the statutory scheme excludes civil court jurisdiction while providing for transfer of pending matters to the Tribunal, transfer to the High Court was not justified. The request for transfer was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106425</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>