https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40238 Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 does not operate retrospectively to extinguish a restoration claim or related proceeding already instituted before the Act commenced. The Supreme Court held that where an application under section 144 CPC had been made and allowed before the statutory bar arose, a later writ issued under Order 21, rule 35 CPC was only a consequential execution step and did not amount to a fresh claim. The High Court erred in treating the provision as retrospective against the pending proceeding. en-us Tue, 25 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Dec 2019 18:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40238 Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 does not operate retrospectively to extinguish a restoration claim or related proceeding already instituted before the Act commenced. The Supreme Court held that where an application under section 144 CPC had been made and allowed before the statutory bar arose, a later writ issued under Order 21, rule 35 CPC was only a consequential execution step and did not amount to a fresh claim. The High Court erred in treating the provision as retrospective against the pending proceeding. Case-Laws Benami Property Tue, 25 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40238