Report No. 57
6.12. Views as to second alternative.-
One High Court Judge has stated1 that the second alternative will help the ostensible transactions, and not the revenue. Government will not be able to proceed against the property. (He, however, is unable to suggest any other alternative).
1. S. No. 43.
6.13. Several persons and bodies have preferred the second alternative. To this category, for example, belong one High Court,1 some Judges of one High Court2 one Judge of another High Court,3 two Judges of another High Court,4 one Judge of yet another High Court,5 one High Court Bar Association,6, and the Legal Remembrancer of a Union Territory,7-8 and two State Government.9
It may, however, be mentioned that one of the High Courts10 has emphasised that only benami transactions which contain an element of dishonesty or fraud, should be prohibited.
1. S. No. 30.
2. S. No. 43.
3. S. No. 39.
4. S. No. 43.
5. S. No. 47.
6. S. No. 35 (Jabalpur High Court Bar Association). Also S. No. 16 (Kanpur Bar Association).
7. S. No. 22 (Legal Remembrancer, Chandigarh).
8. The above List is illustrative only.
9. S. No. 53 and S. No. 21.
10. S. No. 55.
6.14. The Legal Remembrancer of a Union Territory, who favours the second alternative, has added1 these comments. "The only exceptions thereto may be made in the case of acquisitions made by a karta of the joint Hindu family for himself and the members of the joint Hindu family, by a guardian for the minor (if the minor is having a source of income) and by the trustee for the beneficiary of the trust."
1. S. No. 22.