The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed a writ petition challenging an order which held that a final determination on section 4(3)(b) of the Benami Transactions Act requires a trial hearing.
Writ petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
:1:
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE
DISTRICT :
WRIT PETITION NO.10022 OF 2004
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court’s or Judge’s
of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders
orders or directions and
Registrar’s orders
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.R.G.Ketkar for the Petitioner.
Mr.S.Jadhav for Respondent No.1B and
1D.
Mr.Tejas Deshmukh for Respondent
Nos.1E, 1F, 1G.
CORAM : S.J.VAZIFDAR, J.
DATED : 16TH JANUARY, 2007
P.C:
The impugned order warrants no
interference. The question whether
the Plaintiff is entitled to avail of
section 4(3)(b) of The Benami
Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988,
requires to be decided finally at the
hearing of the suit.
2. Needless to add, that the view
expressed in the impugned order is
only a prima-facie, and shall not bind
the learned trial Judge at the final
hearing of the suit.
3. Writ Petition is therefore
:2:
dismissed.
Petitioner
Respondent Nos.1B and 1D
Respondent Nos.1E, 1F, 1G
S.J.Vazifdar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court