<?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>2004 (9) TMI 384 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109294</link>
    <description>Under the Special Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992, a notified person could bring to the Special Court&#039;s notice that a debt was due from a third party, and that debt could be recovered for application towards the notified person&#039;s liabilities. The Court further held that notification attached all properties belonging to the notified person, not only assets linked to securities transactions, and those assets could be applied under section 11 in the statutory order. It also ruled that the Limitation Act, 1963 did not apply to proceedings under the special statute because the Court&#039;s functions in dealing with attached property and distribution of assets were governed by the overriding scheme of the Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Jun 2014 12:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146311" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (9) TMI 384 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109294</link>
      <description>Under the Special Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992, a notified person could bring to the Special Court&#039;s notice that a debt was due from a third party, and that debt could be recovered for application towards the notified person&#039;s liabilities. The Court further held that notification attached all properties belonging to the notified person, not only assets linked to securities transactions, and those assets could be applied under section 11 in the statutory order. It also ruled that the Limitation Act, 1963 did not apply to proceedings under the special statute because the Court&#039;s functions in dealing with attached property and distribution of assets were governed by the overriding scheme of the Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109294</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>