https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777565 HC held that DRT has jurisdiction under Sections 17, 18 and 31 of the RDB Act to entertain recovery claims and that Section 18 bars any court from exercising jurisdiction over matters falling within DRT's domain, including pending suits. Applying a purposive interpretation, the court found Section 31 subordinate to the substantive bar in Section 18 and that assigned monetary claims qualify as "debt" under Section 2(g). After amalgamation of the original plaintiff with a bank, the suit properly fell within DRT jurisdiction and was rightly transferred; the petition was dismissed with no costs. en-us Mon, 11 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Sep 2025 08:01:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777565 HC held that DRT has jurisdiction under Sections 17, 18 and 31 of the RDB Act to entertain recovery claims and that Section 18 bars any court from exercising jurisdiction over matters falling within DRT's domain, including pending suits. Applying a purposive interpretation, the court found Section 31 subordinate to the substantive bar in Section 18 and that assigned monetary claims qualify as "debt" under Section 2(g). After amalgamation of the original plaintiff with a bank, the suit properly fell within DRT jurisdiction and was rightly transferred; the petition was dismissed with no costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 11 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777565