SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(Del) 1807

S.MUKERJEE
ANIL BHASIN – Appellant
Versus
VIJAY KUMAR BHASIN – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Bharat Sharma, N.K.THANAI, N.L.Gupta, Vijay Kishan, VIKRAM JAITLEY

S. Mukerjee

( 1 ) AN interesting question has arisen regarding the interplay of the provisions of the Sections 2 (a), 3 (2) and 4 (3) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 by which Sections 81 and 82 in Chapter IX of the Indian trusts Act, 1982, were deleted in the year 1988, while side by side with the enacting of the Benami Act.

( 2 ) THIS application (I. A. No. 8243/2001) has been preferred by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking leave to amend the plaint, by incorporating inter-alia, the following prayers: i. Plaintiff wishes to add sub-para to the existing para 3, which is as under:

"plaintiff respectfully submits that Smt. Raj Rani Bhasin had purchased certain immovable properties either in her name or in others name including the defendant No. 3. The properties purchased by her in others names were held in trust as trustee. The same were held in fiduciary capacity and for the sole benefit of Smt. Raj Rani Bhasin. The same also devolved upon the parties hereto and are liable to be partitioned. It is submitted that Smt. Raj Rani Bhasin purchased property No. 2-R, Second Floor, DCM building, 16, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, in
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top