<?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>2006 (1) TMI 251 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110712</link>
    <description>Property attached by operation of the Special Courts Act remains under the Special Court&#039;s control, even though the Debt Recovery Tribunal retains jurisdiction to adjudicate and recover the bank&#039;s debt claim under the Debt Recovery Act. The Tribunal cannot execute a recovery certificate against such attached property, nor can it grant directions affecting its sale or disposal; those matters lie exclusively before the Special Court. A prayer for declaration of charge over the attached properties was also not maintainable because no charge had been created in favour of the bank and the assets were already under statutory attachment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2012 13:06:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147728" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (1) TMI 251 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110712</link>
      <description>Property attached by operation of the Special Courts Act remains under the Special Court&#039;s control, even though the Debt Recovery Tribunal retains jurisdiction to adjudicate and recover the bank&#039;s debt claim under the Debt Recovery Act. The Tribunal cannot execute a recovery certificate against such attached property, nor can it grant directions affecting its sale or disposal; those matters lie exclusively before the Special Court. A prayer for declaration of charge over the attached properties was also not maintainable because no charge had been created in favour of the bank and the assets were already under statutory attachment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110712</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>