<?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>2015 (4) TMI 921 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259040</link>
    <description>Proceedings pending before civil courts, including execution against mortgaged property, stand automatically transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 31 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. A court receiver&#039;s sale after the Tribunal&#039;s constitution was therefore without jurisdiction, and the sale, its confirmation, and the sale certificate were treated as void ab initio; lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured by consent or waiver. The Limitation Act applies to Tribunal proceedings by virtue of Section 24, so delay in filing a miscellaneous application could be condoned under Section 5 where the challenge raised a root question of jurisdiction. The rejection of the application on limitation was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Nov 2015 15:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=383138" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (4) TMI 921 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259040</link>
      <description>Proceedings pending before civil courts, including execution against mortgaged property, stand automatically transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 31 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. A court receiver&#039;s sale after the Tribunal&#039;s constitution was therefore without jurisdiction, and the sale, its confirmation, and the sale certificate were treated as void ab initio; lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured by consent or waiver. The Limitation Act applies to Tribunal proceedings by virtue of Section 24, so delay in filing a miscellaneous application could be condoned under Section 5 where the challenge raised a root question of jurisdiction. The rejection of the application on limitation was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259040</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>