Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
A plaint seeking declaration of ownership under a Will was held liable to rejection where a meaningful reading showed a benami and unlawful arrangement barred by statute and by the rule that agreements with unlawful objects are void. The Court held that the 2016 amendment to the benami law was curative and procedural, so the machinery for attachment, adjudication, confiscation and appeals applied retrospectively to earlier transactions, while penal consequences remained prospective. It further held that the fiduciary-capacity exception was narrowly confined and inapplicable on the pleaded facts, and that a person could not inherit through a Will while suppressing material facts relating to a murder accusation. The rejection of the plaint was restored.
A plaint seeking declaration of ownership under a Will was held liable to rejection where a meaningful reading showed a benami and unlawful arrangement barred by statute and by the rule that agreements with unlawful objects are void. The Court held that the 2016 amendment to the benami law was curative and procedural, so the machinery for attachment, adjudication, confiscation and appeals applied retrospectively to earlier transactions, while penal consequences remained prospective. It further held that the fiduciary-capacity exception was narrowly confined and inapplicable on the pleaded facts, and that a person could not inherit through a Will while suppressing material facts relating to a murder accusation. The rejection of the plaint was restored.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4811 
Join Channel 
