Back
MINI PUSHKARNA
Sh. Parmod Kumar Jain – Appellant
Versus
Satish Jain – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Mini Pushkarna, J.
CRL.M.A. 7383/2018 in CS(OS) No. 182/2017
1. The present is an application on behalf of defendant No. 1 under Section 340 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.') against plaintiff on the ground that the present suit filed on behalf of plaintiff is a gross abuse of the process of law and has been filed by plaintiff with dishonest and mala fide intention. The present application has been filed on the premise that plaintiff has verified the suit and has sworn the accompanying affidavit, fully knowing that the contents of the same are false even to his knowledge. Hence, by making false statements `On Oath' before this Court, plaintiff has made himself liable to be proceeded under Section 340 of Cr.P.C.
2. Though the present application has been filed under Section 340 Cr.P.C., however, at the outset, at the commencement of the arguments, learned Senior Counsel for defendant No. 1 submitted that the submissions made qua this application would be made treating the present application as an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`CPC'), for rejection of plaint. Thus, submissions have been advanced by all the parties on the issu
A suit claiming rights in property cannot be dismissed at the threshold without a trial based on arguments of benami ownership as these require evidence to substantiate claims.
The mere existence of a familial relationship does not constitute a fiduciary relationship necessary to exempt a transaction from the bar of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act.
The court held that the rejection of the plaint was improper as the plaintiff sufficiently alleged that the property did not qualify as benami under the exceptions provided in the Benami Transactions....
Section 4 (2) bars a claim or defence permitting "real owner" of such property and has been held from saying that property is benami.
The court held that a claim for property belonging to a joint Hindu family is not barred as benami under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act when purchased with family funds, requirin....
A benami transaction to a married daughter does not qualify for exemption under Section 3(2)(a) of the Old Act, rendering the plaintiffs' suit barred under Section 4 of the Benami Transactions Act.
The prohibition against suits concerning benami transactions under Section 4(1) of the Benami Transactions Act is applicable, and such provisions must be evaluated within the context of the law's ena....
The court emphasized that in ex parte cases, the plaintiff must prove their claims, and the statutory presumption under the Benami Transactions Act favors the spouse unless rebutted.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
