https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461731 Parliament's competence to create specialised tribunals for bank debt recovery was upheld, as Articles 323A and 323B were not treated as exhaustive and the power to administer justice in the Seventh Schedule was read broadly. The Act was nevertheless held unconstitutional because it gave banks a one-sided recovery process, denied debtors set-off and counter-claim, excluded ordinary civil court jurisdiction, and placed the tribunal under executive control, thereby undermining judicial independence and Article 14. The appointment of the Presiding Officer was also invalid because the prescribed District Judge qualification was not shown to be satisfied, and the tribunal notification was quashed with pending matters transferred to the High Court. en-us Fri, 10 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Apr 2025 16:50:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461731 Parliament's competence to create specialised tribunals for bank debt recovery was upheld, as Articles 323A and 323B were not treated as exhaustive and the power to administer justice in the Seventh Schedule was read broadly. The Act was nevertheless held unconstitutional because it gave banks a one-sided recovery process, denied debtors set-off and counter-claim, excluded ordinary civil court jurisdiction, and placed the tribunal under executive control, thereby undermining judicial independence and Article 14. The appointment of the Presiding Officer was also invalid because the prescribed District Judge qualification was not shown to be satisfied, and the tribunal notification was quashed with pending matters transferred to the High Court. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 10 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461731