|
Advanced Search Options
Benami Property - Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 302 Records
-
1991 (3) TMI 102 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Entries In I.T. Rules
... ... ... ... ..... ect. Thus, holding that Sham Sunder was not actually the owner of the money invested in the names of his wife and children, he having been paid out of the partnership funds such amounts, it is his duty to meet the claims of the plaintiffs brought in these suits. Sada Nand is not to meet this liability, So held. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that interest on the amount claimed should also be allowed in view of the provisions of section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There is force in this contention. Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code empowers the court to grant future interest at the rate of 6 per annum, the minimum which is allowed. For the reasons recorded above, these appeals are allowed. Judgments and decrees, of the lower appellate court are modified. The suits filed by the plaintiffs shall stand decreed along with 6 interest per annum from the date of the suit till realisation against Sham Sunder, the defendant. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (2) TMI 25 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, Civil Procedure Code, Suits
... ... ... ... ..... ment being paras 10(a), 10(b) and 10(c) and the prayer portion of the plaint being para (ai) all other amendments as per the schedule of the petition of the amendment are disallowed. The prayer for deleting paragraph 7 and the renumbering of the subsequent paragraphs is also rejected and, as a result, the amendment of paragraphs 10(a), 10(b) and 10(c) shall be treated as the amendment of paragraphs 11(a), 11(b) and 11(c) of the original plaint. The learned trial judge, therefore, shall direct the amendment to be made in the original plaint in terms of the order passed by this court and the present opposite party shall submit before the learned trial judge a fresh amended plaint in terms of the order passed by this court. In the circumstances, no order for costs is passed. The present petitioner shall file an additional written statement against the amendment allowed by this court within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order. M. N. Roy J.-I agree.
-
1990 (12) TMI 151 - ITAT JAIPUR
Assessment, Benami Transaction
... ... ... ... ..... the operation of this Act. To my mind even though it does not arise out of the difference of opinion between the Members, still it appears to have relevance and in my view there is no reason why in the face of the provisions of this Act the property in the name of the wife cannot be said to belong to the husband, i.e., the assessee herein till the contrary was proved, which in this case, I hold, was not proved. 9. After consideration of the above, I am of the view that the eight power-looms run in the names of Smt. Shanti Devi and Smt. Mansa Devi belonged to them and that the income therefrom was not to be included in the income of the assessee. I, therefore, do not agree with the view of the learned Judicial Member. In this view of the matter I am of the opinion that the matter need not go back to the Commissioner of Income-tax for fresh enquiry. 10. The matter will now go before the regular Bench for the disposal of the appeal in accordance with the opinion of the majority.
-
1990 (12) TMI 25 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Benami Transaction
... ... ... ... ..... other angle also. A person can purchase the property under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Act benami in the name of his wife or unmarried daughter but the right of the real owner to recover the property from the benami holder has been eliminated by section 4 of the Act. Earlier, there was a right to recover or resist the claim of the real owner against the benamidar but now that remedy stands barred and the right rendered unenforceable as has been held by the apex court in Mithilesh Kumari s case 1989 177 ITR 97. It is a disabling statute and all the real owners are equally affected by the disability provision provided in section 4 of the Act. Hence, I find no force in the submission of learned counsel for the respondent. In view of my finding recorded above, I would not go into the factual merits of this case. The appeal is accepted, judgment and decree of the trial court is set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
1990 (10) TMI 45 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Benami Transactions - Civil Procedure
... ... ... ... ..... ht for is necessary for determining the real point in controversy between the parties, and the defendants can be compensated with costs, there cannot be any objection to allowing the amendment. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the defendants fails. In the light of the above discussions, I allow the amendment subject to payment of Rs. 2,000 as costs to be paid by the plaintiffs to the defendants within two weeks. The payment of costs shall be a condition precedent for allowing the amendment. The amended plaint which has already been filed by the plaintiffs be taken on record after the costs are paid as directed. The defendants shall file a written statement to the amended plaint within four weeks from today. Replication, if any, be filed within three weeks thereafter. I. A. No. 6517 of 1990 stands disposed of list the matter before the joint Registrar on December 13, 1990. All other pending applications be listed before court for arguments on January 11, 1991.
-
1990 (7) TMI 372 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... opting any of the Members of the Managing Committee to function as Stewards till the vacancies are filled up in accordance with law. Point No. (7) is answered accordingly. 47. Consequent upon my above findings on Points (1) to (7) I hold on Point No. (8) that all the three appeals have to be allowed and the suit of the first respondent-plaintiff will have to be dismissed by setting aside the impugned Judgment and decree. As regards costs, I consider it just and proper to direct the parties to bear their own costs having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into consideration the circumstance that the plaintiff is a long standing Member of the Club. 48. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, these appeals are allowed, the Judgment and decree dated 19-4-1990 passed in O.S. 10600/89 on the file of the XVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Mayohall, Bangalore, are set aside and the said suit is dismissed directing the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1990 (3) TMI 28 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Benami Transaction, Financing Company
... ... ... ... ..... sue, arguments be heard on that issue. The defendants, in the meantime, also filed the present IAs. In view oil these facts, evidence could not be recorded even during those days. This case was originally filed in the year 1976 and, taking into consideration all these circumstances, I am of the view that, being a very old case, it requires to be expeditiously dealt with. The matter may, therefore, be listed before the Deputy Registrar for fixing fresh dates of trial in this case in October, 1990. Since already sufficient opportunities were granted to the parties to file the list of their witnesses, no indulgence can be shown to them now for the same purpose. If parties still desire to seek the assistance of the court for summoning their witnesses, they will file process fee, diet money, etc., within a week after the dates of trial are fixed. They shall also be responsible to get service effected upon their witnesses. To be listed before the Deputy Registrar on March 30, 1990.
-
1990 (2) TMI 16 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act
... ... ... ... ..... ff pleads that this is particular type of benami transaction which comes under section 4(3)(b). It does not amount to a new case. At this stage, it is not necessary to consider whether in fact the said plea of the plaintiff is true or not. In view of the above the defendants have to be given an opportunity to file an additional written statement and then a necessary additional issue has to be framed and on the basis of the evidence, the said issue has to be decided. So, the observations that were made by the trial court in regard to the merits of the proposed plea of the plaintiff have to be set aside and the findings in regard to the same do not bind either side in the disposal of the suit. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. I. A. No. 101 of 1989, is allowed. The defendants have to be given an opportunity to file an additional written statement, and then the case has to be proceeded with, in accordance with law. No costs.
-
1990 (1) TMI 19 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, Exemptions
... ... ... ... ..... of advancement. Taking thus all facts and circumstances of this case, in my opinion, in a case of this nature, where a husband has purchased a property in the name of his wife and raised a substantial structure thereupon, Parliament did not intend to bar a remedy or a defence. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the judgment and decree passed by the learned court below cannot be sustained inasmuch as, it was required of him to take into consideration the reasonings adopted by the learned trial court and meet the same. As noticed hereinbefore, the learned court of appeal below has committed an error of record in holding that the defendant in her written statement did not raise the question of benami. In this situation, in my opinion, there is no other option but to allow the appeal and to remit the case to the learned court of appeal below for fresh decision in accordance with law. However, in the facts and, circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1990 (1) TMI 11 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Benami Property - Orissa Land Reforms Act
... ... ... ... ..... w, the Orissa land reforms authorities have the jurisdiction to examine the real character of a transaction even if the real transferee disclaims to be the real owner. The revisional authority has given no finding with regard to the nature of the transaction, but has only allowed the revision, holding that the Orissa land reforms, authorities have no jurisdiction to decide the real nature of the sale deed. In that view of the matter, the judgment of tile revisional authority cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. Since the revisional authority as the final court of fact has given no finding on the nature of the transaction, after quashing annexure-1, the order of the revisional authority, opposite party No. 3, the matter is remanded to the revisional authority to give a finding on the nature of the sale deed dated August 25, 1975, and to proceed in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. G. B. PATNAIK J. - I agree.
-
1989 (7) TMI 29 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Benami Transaction
... ... ... ... ..... recorded as the owner of the property in the place of Satyabhamabai as a legal heir of the real owner, Yeshwantrao. Since 1967, Pandurang is holding the property in his name as legal and real owner for all practical purposes. In view of the discussion, the Act of 1988 which came into force on May 19, 1988 even though retroactive in operation, cannot create a bar against Pandurang to re-enforce his right against Kamlakar in respect of the property which ceased to be benami since 1966, as a consequence of execution of the relinquishment deed, exhibit 35. Pandurang was, therefore, entitled to recover possession from Kamlakar. The courts below were justified in awarding decrees in favour of Pandurang. The judgment and decree, in view of the discussion, does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Second Appeal No.136 of 1989, therefore, must fail. In the result, second Appeal No. 135 of 1989 and Second Appeal No. 136 of 1986 are hereby dismissed. There would be no order as to costs.
-
1989 (4) TMI 51 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Benami, Sham Transactions
... ... ... ... ..... transfer his title or possession. The fact that the courts below have loosely used the expression benami cannot affect the substance of the conclusion. Moreover, it has to be noted that when the matter was taken in appeal to the sub-court, the point formulated for consideration was whether the documents relied on by the plaintiff are sham documents. In second appeal from that decision, this court held that the conclusion on the point so formulated was wrong. After remand the court below addressed itself to all relevant aspects and agreed with the findings of the trial court. These findings have been arrived at on a correct appreciation of all relevant facts. The findings do not call for interference in second appeal. In the circumstances, on the finding that the transactions are only sham and nominal, there is no scope to invoke section 4 of the Act in aid of the appellants. In the result, the second appeal fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, no costs.
-
1989 (3) TMI 30 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act
... ... ... ... ..... ty. The commissioner s report also shows that there was some boundary in between the plaint schedule property and the northern property held by the plaintiff. The courts below were swayed by the plaintiff s documents. They would only show that the plaintiff and P. W-1 spent some amount and actively participated in constructing the samadhi sthanam nagam . There is absolutely nothing in evidence to show that Krishnan gave up his rights in respect of this property. The trial court as well as the appellate court seriously erred in finding that the plaintiff was in possession of the property. After the death of the plaintiff, the property devolved on the defendants. Therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. I set aside the decree and judgment of the trial court and the lower appellate court. In view of the close relationship between the parties, I order that they shall bear their respective costs. The appeal is allowed and the suit will stand dismissed.
-
1989 (2) TMI 111 - SUPREME COURT
Appeal By Special Leave, Benami Transaction, Law Commission Report, Retrospective Operation, Statute For Prohibition, Supreme Court
-
1989 (2) TMI 60 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act
... ... ... ... ..... n that section 4 governs transactions not only entered into on or after May 19, 1988, but all transactions entered into prior to the said date as well. This is the view taken by a learned single judge of this court, Ramaswamy J., in P. Ramachandra Rao v. G. Jangaiah 1989 179 ITR 438. Of course, the learned judge was dealing only with the Ordinance, since by that date the Act had not come into force. Same is the view taken by a learned single judge of the Kerala High Court in Velayudhan Ramakrishnan v. Rajeev 1988 174 ITR 482. We must record that the constitutionality of section 5 has not been questioned before us and, therefore, it is not necessary for us to deal with the same or express any opinion thereon. For the above reasons, both the contentions raised by the petitioners, viz., with respect to the legislative competence of Parliament and with respect to the operation of section 4 (termed as retrospective operation) are rejected. Post the matters for disposal on merits.
-
1989 (2) TMI 28 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Benami Transaction
... ... ... ... ..... that the present transaction is exempted from the provisions of the Act, 1988 , in view of the provisions of section 4(3)(b) of the Act as the transaction was entered into on account of a fiduciary relationship. M. D. Jain, as already stated above, is related to Surinder Kumar as his brother-in-law. There is no merit in this contention. There is no evidence on the record produced on behalf of Narinder Kumar and others that M. D. Jain was in such a position to dominate them. On the other hand, their case is that they had paid all the instalments though in the name of M. D. Jain, whereas the stand of M. D. Jain is that he had sent the amount which was paid in his name under the agreement. R. F. A. No. 74 of 1986 is allowed, the judgment and decree of the trial court are set aside and the suit of M. D. Jain and others for possession of the property in dispute is decreed. R.F.A. Nos. 72 and 73 of 1986 are dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs in these appeals.
-
1988 (10) TMI 6 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Benami Transaction
... ... ... ... ..... also declares its object to be to prohibit ... the right to recover property held benami as did the long title of the Ordinance. We have, hereinbefore, referred to section 2 of the Ordinance as the same was in operation when the impugned order was passed but now, in view of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, all our observations made hereinabove on and about section 2 of the Ordinance must be taken to relate to section 4 of the Act. We, accordingly, allow the revision and quash the proceeding of the court below for recovery of possession of the disputed property and the order directing the issuance of a writ for delivery of possession, as illegal and violative of the provisions of section 2 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition of the Right to Recover Property) Ordinance, 1988, now replaced by section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. No costs. Records, if any, along with copy of this order to go down at once. AJIT KUMAR NAYAK J. -I agree.
-
1986 (11) TMI 5 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Benami Property
... ... ... ... ..... same in accordance with law. In view of the submission of Mr. Dey, I am not dismissing the suit as not maintainable but am giving an opportunity to the respondent to file an application in the court below regarding the facts which are required to be pleaded as provided under section 281A of the Act. If no such application for amendment of the plaint is filed by the respondent within a reasonable time to be granted by the court below, the suit shall be dismissed by it by holding that it is not maintainable. If such an application for amendment is made by the respondent and if the court below is satisfied that there has been compliance with section 281A of the Act before the institution of the suit, it shall allow the amendment. It shall, if such prayer is made on behalf of the respondent, thereafter hear the injunction matter again. In that case, it shall keep in view the observations made above and shall also consider the effect of section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.
-
1976 (8) TMI 184 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... uit properties should be deemed to be and held as the properties of Ramaswami Iyengar, in which the plaintiff did not acquire a right by birth, no such accounting can be directed, as it is not possible. 17. As regards the wills and settlement deeds, no question has been raised before us. There was no argument before us that they were not executed when T.S. Ramaswami Iyengar was in a sound and disposing state of mind. We are not, therefore, referring to this and we accept the finding of the Court below that the wills have been executed validly by Ramaswami Iyengar, when he was in a sound state of mind. 18. In the result, we hold that the suit properties are not joint family properties and that Ramaswami Iyengar had the requisite authority and competence to settle or will away the same, as he did under Exhibits B-1 to B-10 and that the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree for partition and separate possession as claimed by him. 19. The appeal is, therefore, allowed with costs.
-
1970 (3) TMI 172 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... mbined with a notice under S. 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, has to be served on the tenant personally? 1. The answer is in the negative. Even a notice of demand deemed or presumed to have been served on a tenant will be "service upon him of notice of demand". 2. Whether it is incumbent on the plaintiff to prove the endorsement of refusal on the notice sent by registered post by producing the postman or other evidence in case the defendant denies service on him? 2. The answer is in the negative. 3. Whether in the circumstances of the present case the Courts below were right in raising the presumtion under S. 114 of the Evidence Act in favour of the land lord? 3. The answer is In the affirmative. The presumption regarding service of such notice has also to oe made Under S, 27, General Clauses Act. 35. Let the papers of this appeal be now laid before the learned single Judge for the decision of the appeal. R.B. Mishra, J. 36. I agree. H.N. Seth, J. 37. I agree.
....
|
