https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767668 The HC held that DRAT was unjustified in remanding the matter to DRT for fresh consideration of jurisdiction and other issues. The court found that DRAT had sufficient factual material to decide whether the bank's claim constituted a debt under Section 2(g) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, and other legal issues. DRAT failed to discharge its duty as first appellate authority by simply remanding without cogent reasons. The HC emphasized that remand orders should not be passed lightly and cause unnecessary delays. Given the matter had been pending for almost 20 years since 2005, DRAT was directed to decide the appeals in accordance with law without further remand. Petition disposed of. en-us Thu, 20 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 22 Mar 2025 08:34:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767668 The HC held that DRAT was unjustified in remanding the matter to DRT for fresh consideration of jurisdiction and other issues. The court found that DRAT had sufficient factual material to decide whether the bank's claim constituted a debt under Section 2(g) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, and other legal issues. DRAT failed to discharge its duty as first appellate authority by simply remanding without cogent reasons. The HC emphasized that remand orders should not be passed lightly and cause unnecessary delays. Given the matter had been pending for almost 20 years since 2005, DRAT was directed to decide the appeals in accordance with law without further remand. Petition disposed of. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 20 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767668