The IBC would prevail over The Customs Act, to the extent that once moratorium is imposed in terms of Sections 14 or 33(5) of the IBC, as the case may be, the respondent authority has a limited jurisdiction to assess/determine the quantum of custom duty and other levies. The respondent authority does not have the power to initiate recovery of the dues by means of sale/confiscation, as provided under Custom Act.
| Posted on: August 26, 2022 |
The law on this issue stands crystallised to the effect that the inherent powers enshrined under Section 151 CPC can be exercised only where no remedy has been provided for in any other provision of CPC. In the event that a party has obtained a decree or order by playing a fraud upon the court, or where an order has been passed by a mistake of the court, the court may be justified in rectifying such mistake, either by recalling the said order, or by passing any other appropriate order. However, inherent powers cannot be used in conflict of any other existing provision, or in case a remedy has been provided for by any other provision of CPC. Moreover, in the event that a fraud has been played upon a party, the same may not be a 19 case where inherent powers can be exercised
| Posted on: August 23, 2022 |
The mere suspicion that the purchases might not have wholly been made with the lady’s money will certainly not suffice to establish that the purchases were benami, nor even the suspicion that moneys belonging to Jagannadha Rao whether in a smaller measure or a larger measure, must have also contributed to these purchases. Even in cases where there is positive evidence that money had been contributed by the husband and not by the wife, that circumstance is not conclusive in favour of the benami character of the transaction though it is an important character
| Posted on: April 27, 2007 |
It is well settled that intention of the parties is essence of the benami transaction and the money must have bean provided by the party invoking the doctrine of benami. The evidence shows clearly that the original plaintiff did not have any justification for purchasing the property in the name of Ramayee Ammal. The reason given by him is not at all acceptable. The source of money is not at all traceable to the plaintiff. No person named in the plaint or anyone else was examined as a witness. The failure of the plaintiff to examine the relevant witnesses completely demolishes his case
| Posted on: August 31, 2004 |