https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23333 A claim alleging fraudulent diversion of loan funds to acquire properties in others' names was distinguished from a pure benami claim by a real owner seeking recovery of property held benami. The Delhi HC noted that section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 does not bar a suit founded on alleged fraudulent transfer or diversion of funds where the defendants are said to have acquired assets out of those diverted monies. It also accepted that the principle underlying section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 may apply to fraudulent transfers of movable property and to creditor claims against transfers made to defeat them. The statutory-bar applications were rejected and the allegations were directed to trial. en-us Mon, 19 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Dec 2019 18:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23333 A claim alleging fraudulent diversion of loan funds to acquire properties in others' names was distinguished from a pure benami claim by a real owner seeking recovery of property held benami. The Delhi HC noted that section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 does not bar a suit founded on alleged fraudulent transfer or diversion of funds where the defendants are said to have acquired assets out of those diverted monies. It also accepted that the principle underlying section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 may apply to fraudulent transfers of movable property and to creditor claims against transfers made to defeat them. The statutory-bar applications were rejected and the allegations were directed to trial. Case-Laws Benami Property Mon, 19 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23333