Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an execution proceeding to recover possession of property declared benami is barred by section 2(1) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition of the Right to Recover Property) Ordinance, 1988, and whether the bar applies to proceedings already pending when the Ordinance commenced.
Analysis: The expression "suit, claim or action" was construed broadly to include not only original proceedings but also execution proceedings seeking enforcement of a decree recognising a benami claim. The phrase "shall lie" was treated as indicating a prohibition both on institution and on continuance of proceedings, unlike the narrower formulation "shall be instituted". The object of the enactment, reinforced by its long title, supported an interpretation that would prevent enforcement of benami rights after commencement, including proceedings already pending. The later Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 was noted as replacing the Ordinance, with section 4 carrying the same substance.
Conclusion: The execution proceeding and the order directing delivery of possession were barred and liable to be quashed. The revision was allowed in favour of the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory bar expressed in terms that no suit, claim or action "shall lie" against a benamidar extends to execution proceedings and applies to pending proceedings where the legislative language and object show an intention to prohibit both institution and continuance.