1999 (12) TMI 56 - SUPREME COURT - Income Tax

Head Note / Extract:
Whether the money which was sent was wrongly utilised in purchasing the properties in the name of the respondent and the brothers instead of purchasing the same in the name of the appellant? Held that:- Section 4 which contains the prohibition to recover the property held benami expressly provides in sub-section (3), clause (b), that the said section is not to apply, inter alia, in a case where the property is held in the name of a trustee. This court in R. Rajagopal Reddy v. Padmini Chandrasekharan [1995 (1) TMI 67 - SUPREME Court] has held that the said Act and the Ordinance were not retrospective in operation and the Act did not apply to pending suits which had already been filed and entertained prior to the coming into force of section 4 of the Act. This being so, the High Court in the present case fell in error in setting aside the decision of the executing court and in holding that the right of the appellant to recover possession bid come to an end by virtue of the said Act. Thus the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court under, appeal is set aside