Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.47 seconds)The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988
V. Suseelan vs T.P. Leela on 22 January, 2004
In the light of the above discussions and on analysis of the judgments of the courts below, this Court finds that the courts below did not consider both oral and documentary evidence adduced and produced on either side in a proper perspective and did not apply the correct legal principles laid down by the Apex Court as well as this Court and therefore, they came to a wrong conclusion by decreeing the suit as prayed for.
Syed Walliuddin And Anr. vs Mst. Rafiqa Bibi And Anr. on 14 April, 1986
and another v. Mst.Bibi Hazra and others), and 2004 (2) L.W. 123 (DB) (U.Bhaskaran .v. Bank of India & others).
Smt. M. Printer And Ors. vs Marcel Martins on 26 March, 2001
30. If the intention to purchase the property is to avoid payment of any tax or to conceal any unaccounted income, then before applying the provisions of the Act, a careful consideration of the nature of the transaction has to be looked into. The above principle has been laid in M. Printer vs. Marcel Martins (AIR 2002 Karn. 191).
1