<?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>1997 (6) TMI 372 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461490</link>
    <description>The Debts Recovery Tribunal, though not bound by the strict procedure of the Code of Civil Procedure under Section 22 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, must still use a fair and workable procedure consistent with natural justice and expeditious adjudication. Where a party dies during proceedings, the Tribunal should apply the substance of Order 22 CPC to bring legal heirs on record and avoid arbitrary abatement. The limited use of that procedure was held necessary to prevent unjust procedural consequences. The Tribunal&#039;s insistence on condonation without a clear basis and its adverse remarks were unwarranted, and an order of abatement in the manner adopted could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Apr 2025 11:42:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=812984" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (6) TMI 372 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461490</link>
      <description>The Debts Recovery Tribunal, though not bound by the strict procedure of the Code of Civil Procedure under Section 22 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, must still use a fair and workable procedure consistent with natural justice and expeditious adjudication. Where a party dies during proceedings, the Tribunal should apply the substance of Order 22 CPC to bring legal heirs on record and avoid arbitrary abatement. The limited use of that procedure was held necessary to prevent unjust procedural consequences. The Tribunal&#039;s insistence on condonation without a clear basis and its adverse remarks were unwarranted, and an order of abatement in the manner adopted could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461490</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>