https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393963 A counterclaim alleging a benami transaction could not be rejected at the threshold under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC merely because Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 was invoked. The applicability of the statutory bar depended on disputed questions of fact, including whether the property was purchased benami and who paid the consideration, which had to be examined on the pleadings and evidence. Because the bar was not apparent from the counterclaim alone, rejection was unwarranted. The HC upheld the order refusing to reject the counterclaim and dismissed the revisional challenge. en-us Fri, 28 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Mar 2020 17:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393963 A counterclaim alleging a benami transaction could not be rejected at the threshold under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC merely because Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 was invoked. The applicability of the statutory bar depended on disputed questions of fact, including whether the property was purchased benami and who paid the consideration, which had to be examined on the pleadings and evidence. Because the bar was not apparent from the counterclaim alone, rejection was unwarranted. The HC upheld the order refusing to reject the counterclaim and dismissed the revisional challenge. Case-Laws Benami Property Fri, 28 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393963