https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197747 A High Court declined to restrain a defendant from prosecuting its DRT original application, holding that the DRT is not subordinate to the High Court in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction and that an injunction against such proceedings was barred by Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act. It also refused to restrain reliance on the Deed of Indemnity and Deed of Hypothecation, finding both instruments were supported by lawful consideration under the underlying receivables transaction and were not void ab initio. The court held that objections to enforceability could be raised before the DRT in answer to the defendant's claim. The notice of motion was dismissed. en-us Fri, 21 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Jan 2018 07:39:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197747 A High Court declined to restrain a defendant from prosecuting its DRT original application, holding that the DRT is not subordinate to the High Court in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction and that an injunction against such proceedings was barred by Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act. It also refused to restrain reliance on the Deed of Indemnity and Deed of Hypothecation, finding both instruments were supported by lawful consideration under the underlying receivables transaction and were not void ab initio. The court held that objections to enforceability could be raised before the DRT in answer to the defendant's claim. The notice of motion was dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 21 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197747