9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 1023 - HC - Benami PropertyBenami Property Transaction - Scope of provisions of Section 5 of the Amended Act 2016 - HELD THAT - Today when the matters were taken up for hearing the learned counsel appearing for both sides in unison submitted that a batch of appeals 2023 (12) TMI 620 - MADRAS HIGH COURT cases challenging the very same impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal was disposed of by this court by passing a detailed judgment as on date the decision of the Hon ble supreme court in Union of India v. Ganapati Dealcom Pvt Ltd. 2022 (8) TMI 1047 - SUPREME COURT holds the field and hence the arguments advanced on the side of the appellants that the provisions of Section 5 of the Amended Act 2016 have to be applied retrospectively cannot be countenanced. Further it is to be noted that in the Review Petition (Civil) 2023 (1) TMI 1327 - SC ORDER f iled by the Department to review the order passed by the Honourable Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Ganapati Dealcom Pvt Ltd. delay was condoned and the application for oral hearing of the review petition was allowed however no stay order was granted. In such circumstances pendency of the review of the decision in Union of India vs. Ganapati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd cannot be a ground to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. It is also well settled that mere pendency of the Review Petition will not be a ground to assail the orders impugned in the appeals.
Issues involved: Challenge to common order by Appellate Tribunal for Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988, regarding retrospective effect of Section 5 of the Act as per Amendment Act, 2016.
Judgment Summary: Issue 1: Retrospective application of Section 5 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, as amended by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016. The appellants challenged the common order of the Appellate Tribunal, arguing that Section 5 of the Act should have retrospective effect. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Ganapati Dealcom P Ltd., holding that the provisions under Section 5 of the 2016 Act can only be applied prospectively. The Telengana High Court also observed that the Amendment Act of 2016 widened the definition of 'benami transaction' and cannot be applied to transactions before 01-11-2016. The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal on the same issue, stating that the matter is covered by the Ganapati Dealcom judgment. The High Court held that the Ganapati Dealcom judgment still stands, and the pendency of a review petition is not a valid ground to interfere with the Tribunal's order. Issue 2: Review petition and pending decisions. The Department filed a Review Petition before the Supreme Court regarding the Ganapati Dealcom judgment, which is pending adjudication. The High Court emphasized that the mere pendency of a Review Petition does not justify interfering with the Tribunal's order. Citing a Supreme Court decision, the High Court clarified that High Courts should decide cases based on existing law without waiting for outcomes of references or review petitions. The appellants were granted liberty to proceed further based on the outcome of the Review Petition filed before the Supreme Court. In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the appeals, leaving it open for the appellants to act based on the Review Petition's outcome. No costs were awarded, and all connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.
|
