https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786472 A plaint specifically alleging that property stood in a father's name but was held for the benefit of the claimant, with funds said to have been provided by the claimant, could not be rejected at the threshold as barred by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 solely on the pleadings. The Delhi HC noted that the statutory bar and the claimed fiduciary exception under Section 4(3)(b) depended on the factual matrix and evidence, not on a bare label in the plaint. The dismissal was therefore unsustainable, and the suit was restored for adjudication on merits before the trial court. en-us Thu, 12 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Feb 2026 09:18:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786472 A plaint specifically alleging that property stood in a father's name but was held for the benefit of the claimant, with funds said to have been provided by the claimant, could not be rejected at the threshold as barred by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 solely on the pleadings. The Delhi HC noted that the statutory bar and the claimed fiduciary exception under Section 4(3)(b) depended on the factual matrix and evidence, not on a bare label in the plaint. The dismissal was therefore unsustainable, and the suit was restored for adjudication on merits before the trial court. Case-Laws Benami Property Thu, 12 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786472