https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468356 Sections 3 and 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 were treated as operating in pending proceedings, so the statutory bar could govern continuing litigation. However, the defendants were not shut out at the threshold from proving that the transaction was sham or that the alleged benamidar never held possession, and evidence on that factual plea was allowed. The Court also permitted substantial amendment of the written statement to add pure legal and alternative defences, including constitutional challenge, limitation, trust, fiduciary relationship, part performance, and inapplicability of the Act, while rejecting vague or repetitive amendments. en-us Thu, 08 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Apr 2026 16:00:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468356 Sections 3 and 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 were treated as operating in pending proceedings, so the statutory bar could govern continuing litigation. However, the defendants were not shut out at the threshold from proving that the transaction was sham or that the alleged benamidar never held possession, and evidence on that factual plea was allowed. The Court also permitted substantial amendment of the written statement to add pure legal and alternative defences, including constitutional challenge, limitation, trust, fiduciary relationship, part performance, and inapplicability of the Act, while rejecting vague or repetitive amendments. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 08 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468356