LEGISLATIVE MEASURES TO TACKLE BENAMI

TRANSACTIONS

Subject Name:

Academic Year: 2023-2024

Semester: VIIth

Submitted by
Anoushka V. Patange
UID- UG20- 45

Submitted to:
Dr. Chamarti Ramesh Kumar
Professor of Law

MAHARASHTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, NAGPUR

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................3
RESEARCH DESIGN.......................................................................................................................4
1. Research Methodology...........................................................................................................4
2. Research Aim and objectives.................................................................................................4
3. Research Questions.................................................................................................................4
4. Scope and Limitation..............................................................................................................4
MEANING OF BENAMI TRANSACTION....................................................................................5
HISTORY OF BENAMI TRANSACTION......................................................................................6
OSTENSIBLE TRANSACTIONS....................................................................................................8
THE BENAMI TRANSACTIONS (PROHIBITION) ACT, 1988.................................................10
BENAMI TRANSACTIONS (PROHIBITION) BILL 2011..........................................................11
BENAMI TRANSACTIONS (PROHIBITION) BILL 2015..........................................................13
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE BENAMI TRANSACTIONS ACT 2016...............................15
CONCLUSION...............................................................................................................................17
BIBLIOGRAPHY...........................................................................................................................18

2
 INTRODUCTION

Corruption is a serious problem for any country which disturbs the faith of citizens in law,
good governance, and the rule of law. Without exception Corruption rates in both developed
and developing countries are increasing at an alarming rate. As the name suggests, a
developed country's economy and infrastructure are already well developed thereby
corruption isn’t as problematic. But, in developing countries, like India, essential projects like
infrastructure and the economy aren’t well developed, and corruption in these fields leads to
major setbacks in the development of a country.

Corruption is not only a major problem in itself but is also the mother of various other
problems which impact the social value system and social developmental process. Without
tackling the problem of corruption India cannot attain its goal of development. One of the
corruption activities in India is known as Benami Transactions. The literal meaning of the
word Benami means ‘Without a name’, its applied in transactions in which real names are not
used. A practice of using fictitious names. This practice of buying property may have
developed in India for many reasons such as the superstition of using lucky names while
buying property, or a desire to conceal family affairs from the world.

This practice although started with no mala fide intention later found its root in Fraud. More
specifically Benami Transactions started occurring for the purpose of defeating the creditors,
who were informed that they could not seize property as it belonged to a fictitious person.
There have been many instances in part wherein people’s wives, children, and servants would
accrue large properties while they themselves were penniless. The objective of this practice
was to reap the benefits of the bifurcation of income and wealth while preventing the
properties from going out of control or the area of the close relatives.1

Although benami transactions are mostly prevalent in the case of immovable properties like
land or a building, benami transactions are equally common in moveable properties as well,
such as shares of companies can be purchased in the name of someone other than the person
who furnishes the consideration.2

1
Govt. Apathy to check Benmai Transactions by T.N. Pandey, Charted Secretary, March 2014, p. 275.
2
Benami Transactions, Origin, Development and Arbitration by K.N. Balasubramanian, 1988, Chapter-I, pg. 4.

3
 RESEARCH DESIGN

1. Research Methodology

The analysis will primarily be based on secondary sources such as Official Legislations,
Judicial Judgements, Websites, Books, Journals, Research Papers, And Academic
Articles, hence the research will be doctrinal in nature. The research for this project
would entail looking at various materials on the subject, most of which would be found
online. In the end, footnotes would be added to acknowledge the sources.

2. Research Aim and objectives

Aim: The aim of this research paper is to map all the legislative measures taken by the
government throughout decades to tackle benami transactions and to check whether these
efforts have been fruitful.

Objective:

a) To study the history of benami transaction to be able to pin point the factors which
lead to increase of benami transactions in India.
b) To map the legislative enactments to tackle benami transactions and objectives behind
them.
c) To study the contemporary situation of Benami Transactions Prohibition legislation in
India.

3. Research Questions

a) What is Ostensible Ownership and how it is different from Benami transactions?

b) What is the legislative history of the benami transactions (prohibition) act, 1988?
c) What was the legislative intent behind the benami transaction (prohibition) Act, of
1988?
d) What is the current judicial position of the benami transaction (prohibition) Act, of
1988?

4
 4. Scope and Limitation

The Scope of this research paper is limited to Legislation regarding Benami transactions in
India.
MEANING OF BENAMI TRANSACTION
The activity of purchasing or holding properties in the name of another person is known as
Benami Transaction. This is a recognized custom in the Indian courts mentioned above,
“Benami” literally translates to “without a name”. The person in whose name the transaction
is taking place is known as the “Benamidar”. A critical characteristic of Benami transaction
is, that there is no intention to benefit the person in whose name the transaction is taking
place. In benami transactions, benamidar is merely an alias for the person who is in actuality
beneficially interested. The Benamidar merely has the Ostensible title to the property
3
standing, but the beneficial ownership of the property is in the name of the real owner.
Benami Transactions are not confined to purchases and it does also extend to other forms of
transactions. Federal Court in the case of Punjab Province v. Daulat Singh4 observed,

“A practice has long been common in this country for intending alienees of land
to take the document of transfer in the names of their friends or relatives,
sometimes with a view to defeat the claims of creditors, sometimes with a view
to avoiding claims by other members of their own family, and sometimes to
escape restrictions imposed upon them by Government Servants’ Conduct Rules
etc.”

3
Quote the 57th Law commission report
4
,A.I.R 1943 F.C. 38, 49 (Varadachariar J.)

5
 HISTORY OF BENAMI TRANSACTION
There are many factors that led to the emergence of Benami transactions in India. One of the
first major factors could be the Joint Hindu Family system in India. This system led to the
desire to make secret provisions that might have caused the rise of Benami transactions.
Another Factor could be the Fraud of the creditors. This practice emerged as a way of
denying the just and lawful dues of a creditor, in essence, defrauding creditors. This is the
major reason why the benami transaction is a very widespread practice in India.5

Another reason for people to have Benami transactions is the desire to evade taxes. In this
way, we can say that entering in Benami Transaction is not a crime against an individual,
rather it is a crime against the state and therefore is a fraud. The last major reason why
Benami Transactions are so prevalent in India is the socio-political state of our country in the
past. Pollock6 mentioned that practices like benami transactions evolve in a state where there
is a constant risk, through generations of hostile conquest or confiscation of property.
Looking at the political state of India during the short-lived period of the Mughal Empire, it's
not shocking to see practices like Benami Transactions being born. By reason of innate love
for secrecy in the minds of the oriental owners of the property. Furthermore, humans have
persistent habits even after the reasons for their habits disappear.

There are many reasons that led to the practice of benami transactions in India, there is no
doubt that it has a firm standing in the Indian Legal System. There is a judicial recognition of
this practice and was first highlighted in early Calcutta cases 7. Before the passing of the
Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act of 1988, benami transactions were not
illegal, because the “transfer of property” does not require that the transfer of property in
favor of one person may not be in the name of another person.

Benami transactions have had a huge impact on India’s economy. This practice of bifurcation
of income into smaller fragments leads to a loss of revenue generation in the form of taxes,
which could have been used for the development of our nation. These transactions are one of
the major reasons for the proliferation of black money. In India people prefer to invest their
unaccounted black money into buying properties, The Benami transaction especially in the
realty sector has become a major way by which generations of black money are held. These
5
K. K. Bhattacharata, Joint Hindu Family, (Tagore Law Lectures) (1884-85), pg. 469, 470.
6
Pollock, Law of Fraud, Misrepresentation mistake (!894), pg. 83, 84.
7
Sheikh Bahadue Ali v. Sheikh Dhomu, 1 Calcutta Sud. R. Diw. Rep. 250, 251, cited in Tyabji, Muslim Law
(1968), page 396, footnote 1.

6
transactions have led to inflated prices of the houses, lowered the options available for a
house buyer, and kept owning your own house a dream for many people. Since Benami
Transactions kept rising year after year the govt. in the year of 1988 passed The Benami
Transactions (Prohibition) Act.

7
 OSTENSIBLE TRANSACTIONS

“Ostensible” literally translates to ‘apparent’ or ‘seeming’. An Ostensible owner is a person

who seemingly or apparently is the owner, but is in reality not the owner. 8 Although the
ostensible owner does not have any real ownership yet he/she has al indicas of ownership.
Ostensible owner can not be said to be a “trespasser” or “a person in unlawful occupation of
property. He acts with the consent or conduct of the real owner.

Section 41 of the Transfer of Property act talks about transfer by, which states as follows:

“41. Transfer by ostensible owner.—Where, with the consent, express or

implied, of the persons interested in immoveable property, a person is the
ostensible owner of such property and transfers the same for consideration,
the transfer shall not be voidable on the ground that the transferor was not
authorised to make it: provided that the transferee, after taking reasonable
care to ascertain that the transferor had power to make the transfer, has
acted in good faith.”

We can understand this situation better with the help of an illustration. For example, a woman
owns the property but allows her husband to act as the owner of the property. The husband’s
name is enrolled with the revenue department for the purpose of paying taxes, he decides if
and who should be tenants of the property. The husband in this situation can be called an
ostensible owner, but the real owner of the property is the wife.

Difference between Ostensible owner and Benamidar:

The transaction in which one person pays the consideration for the property and it is
purchased in another person’s name (Ostensible Owner) is permitted under the transfer of
property act. Whereas Benami Transactions are prohibited under the Benami Transaction
Prohibition act. The concept of Ostensible Ownership given u/s 41 of the TPA is subjected to
provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition of the Right to Recover Property) Act,
1988.

There are many reasons as to why benami transactions are prohibited, as they are majorly
used to convert black money, to hide earnings, to avoid payment of taxes , etc. Under the
8
Dr. Saxena Poonam Pradhan, Property Law, (Ed-2nd 2011), P-178.

8
Income Tax act, there is a provision for “clubbing of income” 9. By virtue of this provisions,
benami transactions can be avoided as this provision ensures that even if a property is
purchased in name of a family member, it will still be taxed and there will be no reduction in
tax liability.

The Benami Transaction Prohibition Act allows ostensible ownership to a certain extent by
way of the provision which states that, purchase of property buy a person in name of his wife
or unmarried daughter, unless proved to the contrary, will said to be a purchase made in
benefit of the wife or the unmarried daughter and therefore is permitted.

9
u/s 64 of the Income Tax Act, 1955- Income of individual to include income of spouse, minor child, etc. 1
2[ 3[ (1)] In computing the total income of any individual, there shall be included all such income as arises
directly or indirectly

9
 THE BENAMI TRANSACTIONS (PROHIBITION) ACT, 1988

It was a small legislation and only consisted of 9 sections, of which only three sections were
substantive sections, those were sections 3, 4, and 5. Section 2 defined benami transaction as
“any transaction in which property is transferred to one person for a consideration paid or
provided by another person”. This definition is considered to be defective, as it does not
account for situations where the property may not be transferred but acquired initially.

Section 3 prohibits and criminalizes benami transactions, by enacting that “no person shall
enter into any benami transaction”. However, entering into a benami transaction would be
punishable with imprisonment which may extend up to 3 years, or a fine or both. The section
does not permit a person to buy properties in the name of wives and unmarried daughters, as
it would be presumed the property is bought for the benefit of wives and unmarried daughters
unless the contrary is proved.

Section 4 of the 1988 Act bars the right of recovery of property which were held benami by
the real owners, only exceptions to this rule can be in cases of HUF properties. Furthermore,
section 5 stipulates that properties that are held benami shall be liable for acquisition by
authorities after the prescribed procedure is followed without payment of the acquisition
amount.

One of the shortcomings of this act relates to the burden of proof. According to the act the
burden of proof has to be discharged by the person who is alleging benami. This process
needs a well-organized system to carry out the necessary groundwork and initiate acquisition.
Furthermore, the substantial sections of this act can only be invoked when the benami nature
of the transaction is well established, because of this the act’s impact is diluted. Due to these
gaps in the system, a new law was proposed by the UPA government in 2011.

Future legislations:

10
 BENAMI TRANSACTIONS (PROHIBITION) BILL 2011
On 18 August 2011, the benami transaction bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha which
proposed to replace the 1988 Act. This bill proposed the following provisions:

1. It proposed to prohibit benami transactions by any person, provided the exception of

transactions that are entered in the name of spouse, brother/sister, or any descendant
or lineal ascendant.
2. The bill provided that, any property which arises out of a benami transaction is liable
to be confiscated by the central government without paying any compensation.
3. The bill further prohibits benamidar from recovering the benami property.
4. In the bill, the initiating officer, approving authority, and the administrator are to be
considered authority.
5. The bill provides that the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Tribunal which
are established under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2000, are respectively
the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Tribunal under the Benami Transaction
Bill. For purposes of an appeal the aggrieved individual appeals to Appellate
Tribunal.
6. The bill further provides that any person who is aggrieved by the decision of the
Appellate Tribunal may appeal to the High Court on any question of law.
7. The bill provides the power to the High Court to designate one or more courts of
session as special courts for the purposes of this bill.
8. The bill provides penalties for entering into Benami Transactions and further
falsifying documents in any procedure specified by the bill.
9. The bill provides for the transfer of suit or proceeding regarding a benami transaction
that is pending in any court (apart from the High Court)/ Tribunal/ Any authority to
the Appellate Tribunal which is provided in the bill.
10. The bill also proposed further consequential amendments to the Prevention of Money-
Laundering Act, of 2002.10

The Standing Committee on Finance presented a report on the benami transaction

(Prohibition) Bill (2011). The report made several key recommendations to the 2011 Bill.
The crucial recommendations are the following:

10
India, 15th Lok Sabha, 58th Report of Standing Committee on Finance (2011-12).

11
  Keeping in mind the gravity of the benami transactions in our nation, the standing
committee recommended that the bill should be extended up to the state of Jammu
and Kashmir in consultation with the State Government.
 The Original Act provides for imprisonment of up to 3 years for benami transactions.
The 2011 bill reduced this penalty to 2 years. The standing committee report
recommended that the original penalty of 3 years should be prescribed.
 The Report suggested the removal of several exemptions provided by the 2011 bill,
apart from the exception in which the benami transaction is entered into by any person
in the name of a spouse or Unmarried Daughter.
 The report suggested an in-built mechanism under the bill, in which every suspicious
transaction must be mandatorily referred to the initiating officer.
 The report recommended for creation of an exclusive Appellate Tribunal for the
Benami Transactions bill, as the committee believed that the appellate tribunal would
be unable to expedite both the cases that falls under both the PMLA and the bill.
 The report recommended that the authorities under the PMLA and the income-tax
authorities must act in a coordinated fashion with the registration authorities to keep
track of illegal transactions.
 The report advised a maximum period of 6 months from the enactment of the law to
make rules.

However, after all the efforts, the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Bill 2011 lapsed after
the 15th Lok Sabha was dissolved. This legislation although being passed by the parliament,
never came into force as no rules were prescribed either.

12
 BENAMI TRANSACTIONS (PROHIBITION) BILL 2015
When the NDA government came into power in 2014, the govt. took measures to curb black
money transactions in the domestic market and abroad to account for generations of
unaccounted wealth. The govt. recognized the weakness of the 2011 bill and subsequently
introduced the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Bill, in 2015.

The 2015 Bill was introduced in Lok Sabha on 13 May 2015 by the then Minister of Finance
Mr. Arun Jaitley and aimed to curb successfully Benami Transactions throughout the country.
The seeks to:

i) Amend the definition of benami transactions

ii) To establish adjudication authority and an appellate tribunal to deal with cases of
Benami transactions
iii) To specify a penalty for the offense of entering into a benami transaction.

The 2015 bill defined benami transaction as “a transaction to, or is held by, a person, and the
consideration for such property has been provided, or paid by, another person” 11. The bill
amends the existing definition, such as transactions relating to property where :1. The
transaction of the property is carried out under a fictitious name, 2. Transaction relating to a
property where the owner is not aware or denies the knowledge of ownership of the property
in question or, 3. The transaction relating to a property where the person providing
consideration isn’t traceable or fictitious. By amending the definition, the scope of the
benami transaction has been broadened to include all possible benami transactions.

The definition also provides 4 exemptions to the definition. The exemptions are when the
property is held by, 1. Karta or member of a Hindu undivided family wherein the
consideration is paid by a known source in the HUF, 2. A person who stands in a fiduciary
capacity, 3. Any person who holds the property in the name of his child or spouse, 4. And
lastly, any person who holds the property in the name of brother or sister or lineal ascendent
or descendent.

The 2015 bill in Chapter III establishes an adjudicating authority to exercise jurisdiction,
powers, and authority that is conferred under the bill. The bill establishes 4 authorities
regarding the benami transactions, those being, 1. Initiating Officer, 2. Approving Authority,
11
The Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016, u/s 4 (9).

13
3. Administrator and lastly, 4. Adjudicating Authority. The bill grants these authorities
powers like confiscation and vesting of Benami property, issuing summons, power to call for
information, power of authority to impound documents, adjudicating the Benami property,
etc.

The 2015 bill further seeks to establish an Appellate Tribunal to hear appeals of aggrieved
individuals against the decisions of the adjudicating authority. Any appeals against the
decision of the Appellate Court will be directed to the High Court. The bill also designated
Special Courts for trying offenses that would be punishable under the bill.

Lastly, the 2015 bill specifies that the penalty for entering into a benami transaction shall be
imprisonment for a term not less than a year and may extend to 7 years, and shall also be
liable to pay a fine of twenty-five percent fair market value of the property. The Bill also
prescribes a penalty for providing false information to any authority or falsifying documents.
The person guilty of falsifying information shall be punishable with imprisonment which is
not less than six months and can extend up to 5 years and the person would also be liable to
pay a fine which may extend up to ten percent of the fair market value of the property.

The Standing Committee on Finance gave the report on the Benami Transactions Prohibition
(Amendment) Bill, 2015 upon the examination of the bill on 28 April 2016. On 22 July 2016,
the govt. proposed amendments to the 2015 bill. By, 27 July 2016 the amendment bill was
passed by the Lok Sabha, and subsequently president gave assent to the amending act on 10
August 2016. In November 2016 the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Amendment Act,
2016 came into force. And the prohibition of benami property transactions rules, 2016 came
into force as well. This amendment act contained detailed provisions which were absent in
the earlier act.

14
 CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE BENAMI TRANSACTIONS ACT
2016
After the amendment act was passed the tax authorities started initiating proceedings
according to the consolidated act (original act + consolidated act), these proceedings were
challenged on the grounds that the amendment act was only applicable when it was enacted
and therefore would not be applicable in the period before that. Further, it was contended that
the original act and the amendment act are different and should be treated as substantive and
be applied prospectively instead of retrospectively.12

The revenue on this issue argued that the original 1988 act only described the offenses and
lacked procedural provisions, this vacuum was filled by the amendment act. Since the
amendment act only fills the procedural vacuum, it should be applied retrospectively.

This issue was brought up in the Honorable Calcutta High Court in the case of Gan Pati
Dealcom (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India13. In this case, it was held that since nowhere in the
amendment Act retrospective application is specified and therefore the act cannot be used to
cover transactions that are not in the nature of offense according to the original act but are an
offense according to the new amendment act. This judgment was challenged and was brought
before the Supreme Court of India by the Union of India.
The Supreme Court by 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli
passed this decision in August 2022. The Apex Court while passing the judgement stated that
the provisions in the original act completely ignore the aspect of Mens rea. Such as section 2
(a) which states:
“(a) benami transaction means any transaction in which property is
transferred to one person for a consideration paid or provided by another
person;”
and section 3 of the original act which talks about the prohibition of the Benami Transactions
Act. The court adjudicated regarding the constitutionality of the provisions instead of whether
there can be a retrospective or prospective application of the provisions.
The Apex court was of the opinion that section 2(a) and section 3 of the original act were
merely shells and lacked any procedural substance that criminal legislation may require.
Mens rea was not present in the original legislation, but its sudden reappearance has created
12
Sri Harsha and Narendra, PROHIBITION OF BENAMI TRANSACTIONS ACT APPLIES
PROSPECTIVELY – SC IN GANPATI DEALCOM PRIVATE LIMITED,
13
[2019] 112 taxmann.com 367/[2020] 269 Taxman 489/421 ITR 483

15
an unusually harsh legislation. The court believed that the entire legislation was susceptible to
arbitrariness as the vital characteristics of the beneficial owner were not taken into account
which led to more stringent and disproportionate.
The court talked about the requirements mentioned in Article 20(1) of the constitution states.
Article 20 (1) states:
“(1) No person shall be convicted of any offense except for violation of the law
in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offense, nor be
subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under
the law in force at the time of the commission of the offense”
The court held that the original act was an inconclusive law as it lacked essential features of
legislation and held the original act to be unconstitutional from the inception thereby
adopting prospective overruling which meant section 4 or any other provision of the act were
not affected by the ruling. The court held that similarly, the Amendment Act should be seen
as a new provision and new offenses i.e., not having any prospective application.
In 2022 Delhi High Court quashed proceedings initiated under the Benami Transaction Act
against Satyendra Jain (Aam Admi Party leader). The court allowed pleas filed by Mr. Jain
on the grounds that the proceedings were initiated regarding the confiscation and attachment
of properties which were which were acquired by Jain before the amendment of 2016 was
passed. The court took account of the Supreme Court Judgement which declared section 3 of
the original act to be unconstitutional for being arbitrary.14
In January of this year, the Center filled for a review petition for this judgement which
declared section 3 as unconstitutional. Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta submitted before the
court that, the earlier judgment struck down provisions that were not even challenged. Further
Solicitor general stated that the retrospective application should not even be questioned as the
Benami Transaction Act is not a penal legislation.15

14
Satyendar K Jain V. The Union of India & Ors ,2022 Livelaw (Del) 961
15
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/centre-seeks-review-of-sc-judgement-declaring-section-32-of-benami-
transactions-prohibition-act-as-unconstitutional-220283#:~:text=The%20Central%20Government%20has
%20filed,ground%20of%20being%20manifestly%20arbitrary.

16
 CONCLUSION
The Original Act of Benami Transaction did not full mechanism against benami transactions.
To adhere to this issue, the government made substantial changes to the 1988 Benami
Transaction Act. To achieve this objective, the government had to come up with a separate
bill which made amendments to the original act. Government adopting the advises of
Ministry of law, decided to make amendments to the act instead of bringing a completely new
separate law. The reason behind this action was, If a new separate law would have been
enacted all the previous benami transactions from the period of 1988 to 2015 would been
provided with a immunity.

When asked regarding the reason why governement chooses to introduce a amendment bill
instead of a new separate bill, the then Honbl’e Finance Minister answered by saying:
“Anybody will know that a law can be made retrospective, but under Article
20 of the Constitution of India, penal laws cannot be made retrospective. The
simple answer to the question why we did not bring a new law is that a new
law would have meant giving immunity to everybody from the penal
provisions during the period 1988 to 2016 and giving a 28- year immunity
would not have been in larger public interest, particularly if large amounts of
unaccounted and black money have been used to transact those transactions.
That was the principal object. Therefore, prima facie the argument looks
attractive that 'there is a 9-section law and you are inserting 71 sections into
it. So, you bring a new law.', but a new law would have had consequences
which would have been detrimental to public interest.”
In essence, the government of India already was aware of the possible outcomes of
the situation. If a new law was introduced then it would have had a prospective
impact leaving many benami transactions unaccounted for which would have been
contrary to public benefit. However, the intent of the legislation was not taken into
consideration by the Supreme Court. Resulting in the objective not being achieved
even after passing the amendment act. This would every benami transaction in the
period from 1988 to 2016 have been granted with immunity, leading to all
proceedings being dropped.

17
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Articles:
1. Divyanshi Sixena & Gurusha Muniyal, “Transfer of Property by Ostensible Owner”,
3 INT'l J.L. MGMT. & HUMAN. 664 (2020).
2. Sri Harsha & Narendra, “Prohibition of Benami Transactions Act applies
prospectively- SC in Ganpati Dealcom Private Limited”, Taxmann.
3. Ajay R. Sigh Adv, “Benami Transactions”.
4. Dr. Pratap Singh Chahal, “An evaluation of socio-legal and economic consequenses
of benami act, 2016”, IAETSD journal for advanced research in applied sciences.
5. Daizy Thakur, “The Anti-Corruption Armoury of India”, 3 INDIAN J.
INTEGRATED Rsch. L. 1 (2023).
6. Pradeep Kumar Singh, “Tackling of Corruption in India by Recently Enacted Penal
Laws”, 7 Athens J.L. 297 (2021).
7. Patil, Yuvraj Dilip, “Ostensible Ownership Vis a Vis Benami Transaction in India”
(December 20, 2012). Available at
SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2191951 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2191951

Official Documents:

1. 57th Report, Law Commission of India, Benami Transactions, August 1973).

2. Reference Note, No. 12/RN/Ref./July/2015, Benami Transactions (Prohibition)

Amendment Bill, 2015, Parliament Library and reffernce, research, documentation
and information service.

Website:

1. https://www.legallyindia.com/views/entry/evolution-of-concept-of-benami-
transaction-in-india-a-brief-analysis

2. https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/delhi-high-court-quashes-proceedings-
satyendar-jain-benami-act-211546

18
3. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/amendments-in-benami-law-supreme-court-
to-consider-hearing-in-open-court-a-review-petition-filed-by-centre-against-2022-
judgment/article66453013.ece#:~:text=The%202022%20judgment%20had
%20declared,from%20a%20mere%20nine%20Sections.
4. https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/delhi-high-court-closes-proceedings-
against-satyendar-jain-under-benami-act
5. https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/centre-seeks-review-of-sc-judgement-declaring-
section-32-of-benami-transactions-prohibition-act-as-unconstitutional-
220283#:~:text=The%20court%20had%20taken%20note,unconstitutional%20for
%20being%20manifestly%20arbitrary.
6. https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-benami-transactions-prohibition-bill-
2011#:~:text=The%20Bill%20prohibits%20all%20persons,no%20compensation
%20shall%20be%20payable.
7. https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-benami-transactions-prohibition-amendment-bill-
2015#:~:text=Under%20the%20Act%2C%20the%20penalty,value%20of%20the
%20benami%20property.

19