https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273935 Disputes within the Debt Recovery Tribunal's jurisdiction under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 were examined in light of arbitrability under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The debt recovery regime was treated as a substitute forum for civil courts in bank recovery matters, but not as creating special substantive rights or excluding private adjudication by necessary implication. A contractual money claim between private parties was characterised as a right in personam, making it capable of arbitration. The exclusive jurisdiction bar under the debt recovery law was held to exclude civil courts, not arbitration, so the parties' arbitration clause remained operative. en-us Thu, 13 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Dec 2023 10:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273935 Disputes within the Debt Recovery Tribunal's jurisdiction under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 were examined in light of arbitrability under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The debt recovery regime was treated as a substitute forum for civil courts in bank recovery matters, but not as creating special substantive rights or excluding private adjudication by necessary implication. A contractual money claim between private parties was characterised as a right in personam, making it capable of arbitration. The exclusive jurisdiction bar under the debt recovery law was held to exclude civil courts, not arbitration, so the parties' arbitration clause remained operative. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 13 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273935