Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 32 (0.33 seconds)
Sabita Rajesh Narang @ Sabita G. Raheja vs Sandeep Gopal Raheja And 33 Ors on 11 September, 2015 cites

Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil & Ors. Etc. ... vs Balwant And Balasaheb Babusaheb ... on 6 January, 1995

The result is that unless trusteeship be shown, no suit to enforce a right over property held by a benamidar lies at the instance of a person claiming to be the 'real' owner of that property. Section 7 of the Benami Act repeals Sections 81 and 82 of the Trusts Act, which deal with resulting or implied trusts, and Section 94, which deals with constructive trusts. Consequently, in order to fit within the exception of Section 4(3)(b) of the Benami Act, the 'trust' spoken of must be one that is outside Sections 81, 82 and 94 of the Trusts Act; and this leaves only an express trust within the meaning of Sections 5, 6 and 10 of the Trusts Act. Those provisions demand the formality of an express declaration of trust, its objects and purposes, its property, beneficiaries and, 8 On the Benami Act: Canbank Financial Services v Custodian, AIR 2004 SC 5123; Dr Jagdish Bansal v Shivkumar Pal, MANU/DE/3903/2012; On limitation: Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil v Balwant B. Patil, AIR 1995 SC 895; Daya Singh v Gurdev Singh, AIR 2010 SC 3240; Gunvantbhai M. Shah v Anton Elis Farel, AIR 2006 SC 1556 22 of 27 ::: Uploaded on - 14/09/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2015 23:56:37 ::: 5-S777-14-RAHEJA-F.DOC importantly, an acceptance of trusteeship by the named trustee. None of these requirements are met. There is no pleading of an express trust at all, as indeed there could not have been. The only pleading, and that is clear even from the written submissions, is of an implied trust, i.e., of the 'impress' of a trust. At most, Sabita might have been able to claim the existence of a resulting trust; but even that is now barred. However, Section 4(3)(b) also speaks of a property being held by some other person standing in a 'fiduciary' capacity.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 213 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Daya Singh & Anr vs Gurdev Singh(Dead) By Lrs. & Ors on 7 January, 2010

The result is that unless trusteeship be shown, no suit to enforce a right over property held by a benamidar lies at the instance of a person claiming to be the 'real' owner of that property. Section 7 of the Benami Act repeals Sections 81 and 82 of the Trusts Act, which deal with resulting or implied trusts, and Section 94, which deals with constructive trusts. Consequently, in order to fit within the exception of Section 4(3)(b) of the Benami Act, the 'trust' spoken of must be one that is outside Sections 81, 82 and 94 of the Trusts Act; and this leaves only an express trust within the meaning of Sections 5, 6 and 10 of the Trusts Act. Those provisions demand the formality of an express declaration of trust, its objects and purposes, its property, beneficiaries and, 8 On the Benami Act: Canbank Financial Services v Custodian, AIR 2004 SC 5123; Dr Jagdish Bansal v Shivkumar Pal, MANU/DE/3903/2012; On limitation: Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil v Balwant B. Patil, AIR 1995 SC 895; Daya Singh v Gurdev Singh, AIR 2010 SC 3240; Gunvantbhai M. Shah v Anton Elis Farel, AIR 2006 SC 1556 22 of 27 ::: Uploaded on - 14/09/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2015 23:56:37 ::: 5-S777-14-RAHEJA-F.DOC importantly, an acceptance of trusteeship by the named trustee. None of these requirements are met. There is no pleading of an express trust at all, as indeed there could not have been. The only pleading, and that is clear even from the written submissions, is of an implied trust, i.e., of the 'impress' of a trust. At most, Sabita might have been able to claim the existence of a resulting trust; but even that is now barred. However, Section 4(3)(b) also speaks of a property being held by some other person standing in a 'fiduciary' capacity.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 96 - T Chatterjee - Full Document

Gunwantbhai Mulchand Shah & Ors vs Anton Elis Farel & Ors on 6 March, 2006

The result is that unless trusteeship be shown, no suit to enforce a right over property held by a benamidar lies at the instance of a person claiming to be the 'real' owner of that property. Section 7 of the Benami Act repeals Sections 81 and 82 of the Trusts Act, which deal with resulting or implied trusts, and Section 94, which deals with constructive trusts. Consequently, in order to fit within the exception of Section 4(3)(b) of the Benami Act, the 'trust' spoken of must be one that is outside Sections 81, 82 and 94 of the Trusts Act; and this leaves only an express trust within the meaning of Sections 5, 6 and 10 of the Trusts Act. Those provisions demand the formality of an express declaration of trust, its objects and purposes, its property, beneficiaries and, 8 On the Benami Act: Canbank Financial Services v Custodian, AIR 2004 SC 5123; Dr Jagdish Bansal v Shivkumar Pal, MANU/DE/3903/2012; On limitation: Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil v Balwant B. Patil, AIR 1995 SC 895; Daya Singh v Gurdev Singh, AIR 2010 SC 3240; Gunvantbhai M. Shah v Anton Elis Farel, AIR 2006 SC 1556 22 of 27 ::: Uploaded on - 14/09/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2015 23:56:37 ::: 5-S777-14-RAHEJA-F.DOC importantly, an acceptance of trusteeship by the named trustee. None of these requirements are met. There is no pleading of an express trust at all, as indeed there could not have been. The only pleading, and that is clear even from the written submissions, is of an implied trust, i.e., of the 'impress' of a trust. At most, Sabita might have been able to claim the existence of a resulting trust; but even that is now barred. However, Section 4(3)(b) also speaks of a property being held by some other person standing in a 'fiduciary' capacity.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 95 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next