Hon’ble Bombay HC quashed the proceedings under Benami Act.




Loading

Hon’ble Bombay HC quashed the proceedings under Benami Act.

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 5122 OF 2021

Brightcareer Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd.

{Amalgamated        entity        of       M/s.        Heritage

Infravision Private Limited}                                                  … Petitioner

Versus

  1. Union of India

& 2 Ors.                                                                                        …Respondents

*****

Mr.A.V. Anturkar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Yatin Malvankar, Mr.Kapil Hirani and Mr.Ranjit D. Shinde, Advocates for petitioner.

Mr.Ajinkya Jaibhave, Advocate for respondent No.1-Union of India.

Mr.Suresh Kumar, Advocate for revenue.

CORAM : DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR & ABHAY AHUJA, JJ.

DATE     : 13th DECEMBER , 2022.

P C :

  1. The petitioner in the present case, apart from challenging the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016, has also challenged the order dated 23rd December 2019, whereby a reference was made by respondent 2 to respondent No.3 in terms of Clause (5) of section 24 of the Amendment Act, 2016 and the order dated 31st December 2019 by virtue of which  the concerned  authority  had  issued  a  provisional  order  of attachment,.
  1. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner states that during the pendency of the present petition, and in the interregnum, the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Vs. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. 1 has, inter-alia, held sections 3 and 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 as having only prospective operation. On a perusal of the judgment and order dated 23rd August 2022 passed by the Apex Court, it can be seen that the Apex Court has directed the authorities not to initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to coming into force of the Act, 2016, i.e., 25-10-2016 and that as a consequence of the above declaration, all such prosecutions or confscation proceedings would stand quashed.
  2. In the present case, the alleged date of transaction, as contained and refected in the show cause notice, dated 31st December 2019 would show the same as ‘30th May 2013’ and ‘19th August 2013’ which Mr. Suresh Kumar admits are much before coming into force of the Amendment Act, 2016.
  1. It is, therefore, admitted by the learned counsel for the parties that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the Apex Court judgment in the case of Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), and therefore, all criminal prosecutions and attachment orders would have to be withdrawn by the authorities.
  1. Considering the directions of the Apex Court in the case of Ganpati Dealcom Ltd. (Supra), the provisional order of attachment dated 31st December 2019, and order of reference dated 23rd December 2019 shall stand quashed.
  1. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

[ ABHAY AHUJA, J. ]                                   [DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, J.]




Menu