https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281031 The Court found in favor of the plaintiff regarding the appointment of a receiver and injunction against respondents' assets. It confirmed interim orders against certain respondents but vacated the injunction preventing respondents from demanding money related to void LCs. The Court held that the Debt Recovery Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction over claims related to debts, including fraudulent debts, transferring the suit against specific respondents to the DRT. The Court emphasized the DRT's jurisdiction over fraudulent debts and maintained the suit's maintainability in the High Court against other respondents pending further determination. en-us Tue, 16 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 31 May 2019 17:30:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281031 The Court found in favor of the plaintiff regarding the appointment of a receiver and injunction against respondents' assets. It confirmed interim orders against certain respondents but vacated the injunction preventing respondents from demanding money related to void LCs. The Court held that the Debt Recovery Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction over claims related to debts, including fraudulent debts, transferring the suit against specific respondents to the DRT. The Court emphasized the DRT's jurisdiction over fraudulent debts and maintained the suit's maintainability in the High Court against other respondents pending further determination. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 16 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281031