<?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>2003 (3) TMI 539 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108508</link>
    <description>Amounts standing to the credit of a defaulter under exchange bye-laws cease to be attachable in the garnishee&#039;s hands once they vest in the Defaulters&#039; Committee, because no subsisting debt remains due and payable to the defaulter or award-holder. A warrant of attachment under Order XXI, Rule 46 CPC cannot issue in the absence of an attachable debt on the relevant date. A SEBI circular requiring award amounts to be kept in a separate account does not create an enforceable right to attachment or payment where the statutory bye-laws have already operated, and it cannot be applied retrospectively to defeat that vesting.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Mar 2012 18:49:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145525" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (3) TMI 539 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108508</link>
      <description>Amounts standing to the credit of a defaulter under exchange bye-laws cease to be attachable in the garnishee&#039;s hands once they vest in the Defaulters&#039; Committee, because no subsisting debt remains due and payable to the defaulter or award-holder. A warrant of attachment under Order XXI, Rule 46 CPC cannot issue in the absence of an attachable debt on the relevant date. A SEBI circular requiring award amounts to be kept in a separate account does not create an enforceable right to attachment or payment where the statutory bye-laws have already operated, and it cannot be applied retrospectively to defeat that vesting.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108508</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>