https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110824 Title to the suit bonds was held to have passed on the basis of a genuine sale supported by the cost memo, pay order, banker's receipt and allotment letter, and the later 15% arrangement did not divest that ownership. CMF failed to prove that HPD became owner or that CMF paid valid consideration, so it could not claim registration of the bonds. The Court further held that res judicata applied to the earlier finding on the 15% arrangement, estoppel was not established, and the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 did not assist CMF. CMF also failed to show bona fide purchase for value without notice. en-us Fri, 05 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Mar 2014 10:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110824 Title to the suit bonds was held to have passed on the basis of a genuine sale supported by the cost memo, pay order, banker's receipt and allotment letter, and the later 15% arrangement did not divest that ownership. CMF failed to prove that HPD became owner or that CMF paid valid consideration, so it could not claim registration of the bonds. The Court further held that res judicata applied to the earlier finding on the 15% arrangement, estoppel was not established, and the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 did not assist CMF. CMF also failed to show bona fide purchase for value without notice. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 05 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110824