<?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 (1) TMI 374 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109325</link>
    <description>A suit brought by a financial institution as debenture trustee to recover sums due to debenture holders was held not to be a claim for recovery of a debt due to a bank or financial institution under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The Act&#039;s definition of &quot;debt&quot; and its ouster of civil court jurisdiction were construed in light of its object and read strictly, so the forum applies only where the institution seeks recovery of its own dues. Because the trustee&#039;s role was representative and its own claim was only nominal remuneration, civil court jurisdiction was not barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Apr 2012 18:34:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146342" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (1) TMI 374 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109325</link>
      <description>A suit brought by a financial institution as debenture trustee to recover sums due to debenture holders was held not to be a claim for recovery of a debt due to a bank or financial institution under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The Act&#039;s definition of &quot;debt&quot; and its ouster of civil court jurisdiction were construed in light of its object and read strictly, so the forum applies only where the institution seeks recovery of its own dues. Because the trustee&#039;s role was representative and its own claim was only nominal remuneration, civil court jurisdiction was not barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109325</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>