<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1995 (4) TMI 32 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18917</link>
    <description>Section 4(1) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 was held to be prospective and not applicable to a suit instituted before the Act commenced on 19 May 1988. Because the suit had been filed in 1974, the statutory bar could not defeat the plaintiff&#039;s pre-existing claim in respect of benami property. The earlier contrary view was displaced by the later Supreme Court authority, and the decree in favour of the plaintiff was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Dec 2019 17:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=57916" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (4) TMI 32 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18917</link>
      <description>Section 4(1) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 was held to be prospective and not applicable to a suit instituted before the Act commenced on 19 May 1988. Because the suit had been filed in 1974, the statutory bar could not defeat the plaintiff&#039;s pre-existing claim in respect of benami property. The earlier contrary view was displaced by the later Supreme Court authority, and the decree in favour of the plaintiff was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Benami Property</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18917</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>