https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111043 The article explains that the Act's constitutional validity cannot be re-opened on a sub silentio argument where the Supreme Court has already considered it, and that the DRT may entertain section 17 applications even for debts below the RDB Act's monetary threshold because the reference is to the Tribunal with territorial jurisdiction. It also states that, after amendment, no ad valorem fee could be demanded under the 1993 Rules in the absence of a prescribed rule, so only the fixed fee applied until rules were framed. The text further notes that banks must elect between parallel recovery remedies and that section 13(4) permits only symbolic possession, not actual physical dispossession, unless the statutory procedure for physical possession is followed. en-us Thu, 08 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Apr 2012 10:14:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111043 The article explains that the Act's constitutional validity cannot be re-opened on a sub silentio argument where the Supreme Court has already considered it, and that the DRT may entertain section 17 applications even for debts below the RDB Act's monetary threshold because the reference is to the Tribunal with territorial jurisdiction. It also states that, after amendment, no ad valorem fee could be demanded under the 1993 Rules in the absence of a prescribed rule, so only the fixed fee applied until rules were framed. The text further notes that banks must elect between parallel recovery remedies and that section 13(4) permits only symbolic possession, not actual physical dispossession, unless the statutory procedure for physical possession is followed. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 08 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111043