9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 1098 - HC - Benami PropertyBenami Property - Scope of amendment - retrospective or prospective - legality, validity and propriety of the impugned show cause notice and Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) - amendment application urged that during the pendency of this case, the respondents have passed a consequential order under Section 24(5) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions, 1988 (Act of 1988) - HELD THAT - We have perused the show cause notice and are unable to hold that it is issued without authority of law, which warrants interference by this Court at this stage. Since we are not unable to hold that show cause notices were issued without authority of law, the judgments cited by Shri Mishra regarding alternative remedy are of no assistance to the petitioners. As held by this Court in Kailash Assudani OTHERS 2017 (8) TMI 383 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT these petitions cannot be entertains. Pertinently, parties are at loggerheads on a factual aspect whether petitioner has filed the reply to the show cause notice or not ? Shri Mishra, learned senior counsel repeatedly and vehemently contended that the reply on merits to the show cause notice was indeed filed whereas Shri Lal refuted the same. We are not inclined to enter into this aspect at this stage. Since the petitioner is at liberty to raise all relevant aspects before Adjudicating Authority under Section 26 of the Act of 1988, interference is declined.
Issues involved: Challenge to legality, validity, and propriety of show cause notice and provisional attachment order under Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.
Analysis: The petitioners questioned the legality of the impugned show cause notice and provisional attachment order, arguing that the Issuing Authority must independently form an opinion under Section 24 of the Act of 1988 without influence from other authorities. They contended that the impugned notice lacked the required basis, relevant documents were incomplete, and the Provisional Attachment Order showed a lack of application of mind. The respondents, however, supported the notice, stating that the petitioners had not filed a reply on merits despite opportunities provided. They highlighted that the notice was tentative, with the option for redressal through the Adjudicating Authority under Section 24(5) of the Act. The court emphasized the limited scope of interference at the stage of issuing a show cause notice, citing precedents to support the necessity for respondents to respond to the notice and exhaust available remedies before approaching the court. The court analyzed the scheme of Sections 24 and 26 of the Act of 1988, emphasizing the provisional nature of attachment orders and the role of the Adjudicating Authority in examining the issue comprehensively. The court noted that principles of natural justice were codified in the Act, providing for a structured process of adjudication. Referring to previous judgments, the court held that interference at the provisional stage was unwarranted, as the Adjudicating Authority was best suited to consider all relevant aspects. The court dismissed the petitions, stating that since the show cause notices were not issued without authority of law, the alternative remedies cited by the petitioners were not applicable. The court declined to intervene in the factual dispute regarding the filing of a reply to the notice, as the petitioners could raise all relevant aspects before the Adjudicating Authority under Section 26 of the Act. The petitions were dismissed, and any interim orders were vacated.
|
