The SC agreed to consider the Centre’s submissions for an open court hearing of its plea seeking review of the judgment by which several provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 were struck down. The court had struck down section 3(2) and section 5 of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, and one of the provisions which provided for the punishment of a maximum jail term of three years or a fine or both for those indulging in ‘benami’ transactions.
The SC agreed to consider the Centre’s submissions for an open court hearing of its plea seeking review of the judgment by which several provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 were struck down. The court had struck down section 3(2) and section 5 of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, and one of the provisions which provided for the punishment of a maximum jail term of three years or a fine or both for those indulging in ‘benami’ transactions. from Times of India https://ift.tt/RI13cE6
The SC agreed to consider the Centre’s submissions for an open court hearing of its plea seeking review of the judgment by which several provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 were struck down. The court had struck down section 3(2) and section 5 of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, and one of the provisions which provided for the punishment of a maximum jail term of three years or a fine or both for those indulging in ‘benami’ transactions. from Times of India https://ift.tt/RI13cE6
Comments
Post a Comment