2023 (1) TMI 1327 - SCH - Benami Property

Scope of Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 as amended by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 - whether has a prospective effect? - As decided in M/S. GANPATI DEALCOM PVT. LTD. 2022 (8) TMI 1047 - SUPREME COURT Section 3(2) of the unamended 1988 Act is declared as unconstitutional for being manifestly arbitrary. Accordingly, Section 3(2) of the 2016 Act is also unconstitutional as it is violative of Article 20(1) of the Constitution. In rem forfeiture provision under Section 5 of the unamended Act of 1988, prior to the 2016 Amendment Act, was unconstitutional for being manifestly arbitrary. The 2016 Amendment Act was not merely procedural, rather, prescribed substantive provisions.In rem forfeiture provision under Section 5 of the 2016 Act, being punitive in nature, can only be applied prospectively and not retroactively.Concerned authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to the coming into force of the 2016 Act, viz., 25.10.2016. As a consequence of the above declaration, all such prosecutions or confiscation proceedings shall stand quashed. HELD THAT - UPON perusing papers the Court made the following Delay condoned.Application for oral hearing of the review petition is allowed. List the review petition for open Court hearing on 15 March 2023 at 3.30 pm.

Summary

The Supreme Court of India (LB) allowed the application for oral hearing of the review petition and listed it for open court hearing on 15 March 2023 at 3.30 pm. Delay was condoned. Petitioner: Raj Bahadur Yadav, Respondent: Ankit Anandraj Shah [R-1].