TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1983 (3) TMI 48
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d sisters, who were the other defendants. The subject-matter involved included several immovable properties and businesses. In claiming partition by inheritance from Benoy, the plaintiff pleaded that Benoy in his lifetime in order to defraud the creditors and the Income-tax Department caused a false and collusive proceedings to be, started under the Arbitration Act, in collusion with defendant No. 1. In that proceeding, the defendant No. raised a sham dispute based on a sham claim and obtained a fictitious award and a decree passed thereon in Title Suit No. 87 of 1967. This decree covers premises No. 4, Loudon Street, and three businesses run under the name and style of M/s. B. Kumar & Company, M/s. Kumar Construction Company and M/s. India....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that extent. Mr. Ghosh, appearing on behalf of the contesting defendants, supported the view, taken by the learned subordinate judge. According to Mr. Ghosh, the plaintiff's claim in substance constitutes a declaration that premises No. 4, Loudon Street, and the three businesses referred to hereinbefore were held by Benoy during his lifetime in the benami of his wife, the defendant No. 1, and after his death by all his heirs including the plaintiff in a similar manner. Such a claim according to Mr. Ghosh, comes squarely within the provision of s. 281A of the I.T. Act and the three conditions specified therein not having been fulfilled, the suit to that extent had been rightly held to be barred under the said provision. We propose to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cree based on the award, in our view, does not come within the purview of s. 33 of the Arbitration Act, and, as such, s. 32 does not bar such an adjudication in an independent suit. One of the objections upheld by the learned subordinate judge, therefore, appears to us to be based on a misconception of the scope and effect of the two provisions of the Arbitration Act, referred to hereinbefore. Next we proceed to consider the scope and effect of s. 281 A of the I.T.Act. Section 281A(1)provides as follows: " No suit to enforce any right in respect of any property held benami, whether against the person in whose name the property is held or against any other person shall be instituted in any court by or on behalf of person (hereafter in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te a benami transaction as between Benoy and his wife, the present suit cannot be said to be a suit by or on behalf of the person claiming to be the real owner or in other words the second condition referred to hereinbefore cannot be said to have been fulfilled. The person claiming to be the real owner in sub-s. (1) of s. 281A above referred to, necessarily means the real owner vis-a-vis the benamidar, that is, the person who creates the benami. This position is rendered clear when we refer to the statutory form of notice under cl. (c) which is set out hereunder : To The Income-tax Officer, Sir, I/We, hereby bring to your notice that the property, particulars of which are given below, is held by as my/our benamidar and that I am/we are t....