https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111841 Attached property of a notified person under the Special Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 remained under the Custodian's control and within the Special Court's exclusive civil jurisdiction after the 1994 insertion of section 9A. The Special Courts Act, enacted for the specific securities scam context, prevailed over the general recovery regime under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 to the extent of inconsistency. Although both statutes contained overriding clauses, claims by banks against the attached assets were to be pursued before the Special Court, including under section 11(2)(b), and not before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. en-us Fri, 16 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Nov 2015 16:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111841 Attached property of a notified person under the Special Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 remained under the Custodian's control and within the Special Court's exclusive civil jurisdiction after the 1994 insertion of section 9A. The Special Courts Act, enacted for the specific securities scam context, prevailed over the general recovery regime under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 to the extent of inconsistency. Although both statutes contained overriding clauses, claims by banks against the attached assets were to be pursued before the Special Court, including under section 11(2)(b), and not before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 16 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111841