https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113389 The expression "debt" under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 was treated as broad enough to cover a bank's claim against a non-borrower who, with knowledge of the bank's hypothecation, wrongfully sold the secured goods. The Tribunal's jurisdiction was therefore upheld for such a claim. Liability was not treated as extending to the entire decretal claim: it was confined to the value of the hypothecated stock and machinery actually proved to have been sold, together with interest. The decision distinguishes jurisdiction over a wrongful-dealing claim from liability as if the non-borrower were the original debtor. en-us Mon, 03 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Mar 2019 16:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113389 The expression "debt" under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 was treated as broad enough to cover a bank's claim against a non-borrower who, with knowledge of the bank's hypothecation, wrongfully sold the secured goods. The Tribunal's jurisdiction was therefore upheld for such a claim. Liability was not treated as extending to the entire decretal claim: it was confined to the value of the hypothecated stock and machinery actually proved to have been sold, together with interest. The decision distinguishes jurisdiction over a wrongful-dealing claim from liability as if the non-borrower were the original debtor. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 03 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113389