<?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 (3) TMI 825 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106685</link>
    <description>Parliament was held competent to create specialised Debt Recovery Tribunals for recovery of bank dues because banking includes lending and recovery, and Article 246(1) was not limited by the enabling tribunal provisions in Articles 323A and 323B. The Act was also found neither arbitrary nor violative of Article 14, as its streamlined procedure, natural justice safeguards, and limited departure from the Code of Civil Procedure were directed to expeditious recovery. The Court further upheld the transfer of pending cases and the recovery machinery, noting that the scheme included procedural safeguards, hearing rights, affidavit evidence with cross-examination where necessary, and appellate review. The statutory framework was sustained in full.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Dec 2025 14:53:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=143705" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (3) TMI 825 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106685</link>
      <description>Parliament was held competent to create specialised Debt Recovery Tribunals for recovery of bank dues because banking includes lending and recovery, and Article 246(1) was not limited by the enabling tribunal provisions in Articles 323A and 323B. The Act was also found neither arbitrary nor violative of Article 14, as its streamlined procedure, natural justice safeguards, and limited departure from the Code of Civil Procedure were directed to expeditious recovery. The Court further upheld the transfer of pending cases and the recovery machinery, noting that the scheme included procedural safeguards, hearing rights, affidavit evidence with cross-examination where necessary, and appellate review. The statutory framework was sustained in full.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106685</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>