Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + SC Companies Law - 2006 (12) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (12) TMI 232 - SC - Companies LawWhether respondents 1 and 2, namely, Administrator of Specified Undertaking of Unit Trust of India and UTI Trustee Company Private Limited are "financial institutions" within the meaning of that term in the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993? If the answer is in the affirmative, whether the action brought by them before the Debts Recovery Tribunal is for recovery of debts due to them from the appellant herein, and not due to any other person on whose behalf the aforesaid respondents are suing? Held that:- Appeal dismissed. Having examined the provisions of the UTI Act, 2002 no doubt that vesting in the Administrator or the Specified Company is complete. The concept of mere vesting of management cannot be imported into the scheme of the Act. The Administrator and the Specified Company were therefore, fully authorized in law to recover the dues from the appellants as "financial institutions". The Debts Recovery Tribunal had therefore undoubted jurisdiction to entertain their claims. On the basis of the materials placed before us there is nothing to suggest that they were acting either as agents of the Central Government or as trustees. Therefore, hold that they have acted in the exercise of power vested in them by the UTI Act, 2002 and in their own right. The High Court was, therefore, right in dismissing the writ petition preferred by the appellants challenging the jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal
|