<?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>1995 (9) TMI 406 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301206</link>
    <description>Amounts entrusted to a defendant for deposit of rent and allied payments were treated as a &quot;debt&quot; under section 2(g) because the statutory definition covers liabilities due to a bank arising in the course of business activity. &quot;Business activity&quot; was read broadly to include functions necessary for carrying on banking operations, not only core lending or deposit transactions. Since arranging rent for office premises and staff accommodation supported the bank&#039;s efficient functioning, the claim arose from business activity and fell within the Act. The Tribunal&#039;s jurisdiction was therefore upheld and the defendant&#039;s challenge was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Mar 2022 17:36:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=673318" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (9) TMI 406 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301206</link>
      <description>Amounts entrusted to a defendant for deposit of rent and allied payments were treated as a &quot;debt&quot; under section 2(g) because the statutory definition covers liabilities due to a bank arising in the course of business activity. &quot;Business activity&quot; was read broadly to include functions necessary for carrying on banking operations, not only core lending or deposit transactions. Since arranging rent for office premises and staff accommodation supported the bank&#039;s efficient functioning, the claim arose from business activity and fell within the Act. The Tribunal&#039;s jurisdiction was therefore upheld and the defendant&#039;s challenge was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301206</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>