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 section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 barred restoration proceedings and consequential execution steps when the application under section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 had been filed before the Act came into force.
Analysis: The Court held that section 4 is not retrospective so as to extinguish pending claims or proceedings already instituted before the Act commenced. On the admitted facts, the appellant's application under section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 had been made and allowed before the Ordinance came into force. The later issuance of the writ under Order 21, rule 35 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 was only a consequential act of court and did not amount to a fresh claim or action by the appellant after the statutory bar arose.
Conclusion: Section 4 did not bar the appellant's pending restoration claim, and the High Court was wrong in treating the provision as retrospective against that proceeding.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the revisional order of the High Court was set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 does not bar a claim or proceeding that was instituted before the Act came into force, and a subsequent consequential execution step does not convert a pending claim into a fresh barred action.