9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Suresh Kumar, leaned counsel for the respondents. 2. Primary challenge made in the writ petition is to the order dated 11.05.2020 passed by respondent No. 4 as the adjudicating authority under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 (in brief "the Act"). 3. We find that by the said order, respondent No. 4 has affirmed the provisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rlooked by taking the view that irrespective of the technical flaws committed by the initiating officer, what is required to be determined is the fact whether transaction is benami transaction or not; clarifying that it is not necessary to deal with the procedural provisions of the Act at the stage of adjudication for confirmation of provisional attachment. 4.1. Another submission made by learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 before this Court. When the order dated 11.5.2020 was passed by respondent No. 4, petitioner had filed an interim application for stay of the said order. This court took the view that after passing of the order dated 11.5.2020, proceedings against the petitioner stood culminated; therefore, writ petition No. 2738 of 2019 did not survive. On leave sought for by the petitioner to take appropriate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent under section 24(4)(a)(i) of the Act, whether such an order can be sustained when approval is granted post-facto. The second issue of substance is whether the amended definition of benami transaction in section 2(9)(D) of the Act can be applied retrospectively or it would have a prospective application. 7. The matter would require further consideration. 8. Issue notice. 9. Mr. Suresh Kumar, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
