<?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>2010 (2) TMI 1297 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300071</link>
    <description>The Court held that Section 4 of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 does not apply retrospectively to suits filed before the Act&#039;s enactment. As the plaintiff filed the suit after the Act came into force to enforce rights under a Benami transaction, the Court allowed the Revision Petition, set aside the Trial Court&#039;s order, and rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Jan 2022 16:22:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=666804" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (2) TMI 1297 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300071</link>
      <description>The Court held that Section 4 of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988 does not apply retrospectively to suits filed before the Act&#039;s enactment. As the plaintiff filed the suit after the Act came into force to enforce rights under a Benami transaction, the Court allowed the Revision Petition, set aside the Trial Court&#039;s order, and rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300071</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>