<?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>2002 (3) TMI 942 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275324</link>
    <description>Parliamentary competence under Entry 45 of List I was treated as wide enough to cover recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions, with Articles 323A and 323B read as enabling provisions that did not curtail that power. The tribunal-based scheme was considered compatible with Article 14 because it created a specialised forum for expeditious recovery, preserved natural justice, and allowed set-off, counter-claim, and judicial review under Articles 226 and 227. The recovery and enforcement machinery, including attachment, sale, arrest, receivership, transfer of pending matters, and appellate safeguards, was regarded as supported by adequate statutory safeguards and not arbitrary.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2018 14:55:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=536171" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (3) TMI 942 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275324</link>
      <description>Parliamentary competence under Entry 45 of List I was treated as wide enough to cover recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions, with Articles 323A and 323B read as enabling provisions that did not curtail that power. The tribunal-based scheme was considered compatible with Article 14 because it created a specialised forum for expeditious recovery, preserved natural justice, and allowed set-off, counter-claim, and judicial review under Articles 226 and 227. The recovery and enforcement machinery, including attachment, sale, arrest, receivership, transfer of pending matters, and appellate safeguards, was regarded as supported by adequate statutory safeguards and not arbitrary.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275324</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>