https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374207 The Court concluded that the unpaid security deposit claimed by the Bank did not qualify as a "debt" under Section 2(g) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. Therefore, the Bank's recovery proceedings before the DRT were deemed not maintainable. The Court upheld the decisions of the DRT and DRAT, dismissing the writ petition without costs. en-us Fri, 19 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Jan 2019 07:23:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374207 The Court concluded that the unpaid security deposit claimed by the Bank did not qualify as a "debt" under Section 2(g) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. Therefore, the Bank's recovery proceedings before the DRT were deemed not maintainable. The Court upheld the decisions of the DRT and DRAT, dismissing the writ petition without costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 19 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374207