https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23103 An amendment to a plaint was considered maintainable where it recast a benami ownership claim into a plea that the property fell within the fiduciary-capacity exception under Section 4(3)(b) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The court reasoned that the amendment did not introduce an inconsistent or wholly new case because it only reframed the existing claim within a statutory exception, and the suit was already pending when the Act came into force. The defendants were entitled to answer the amended plea by filing an additional written statement and leading evidence on the issue. en-us Wed, 14 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Dec 2019 17:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23103 An amendment to a plaint was considered maintainable where it recast a benami ownership claim into a plea that the property fell within the fiduciary-capacity exception under Section 4(3)(b) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. The court reasoned that the amendment did not introduce an inconsistent or wholly new case because it only reframed the existing claim within a statutory exception, and the suit was already pending when the Act came into force. The defendants were entitled to answer the amended plea by filing an additional written statement and leading evidence on the issue. Case-Laws Benami Property Wed, 14 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23103