SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(SC) 843

N. V. RAMANA, KRISHNA MURARI, HIMA KOHLI
Union Of India – Appellant
Versus
Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. S.V.Raju, ASG Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, ASG (Not present) Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Adv. Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Adv. Mr. Bhuvan Mishra, Adv. Mr. S.A. Haseeb, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Sinha, Adv. Mr. Tathagat, Adv. Mr. Ritwiz Rishab, Adv. Mr. Anshuman Singh, Adv. Ms. Janhvi Prakash, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Ankit Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Arpit Goel, Adv. Mr. Harsh Paul Singh, Adv. Mr. A.K. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ankit Anandraj Shah, AOR Ms. Bhoomija Verma, Adv. Mr. Aniket Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Abhimanu Singh, Adv.
For intervenor Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mayank Jain, Adv. Mr. Parmatma Singh, AOR Mr. Madhur Jain, Adv. Ms. Aakriti Dhawan, Adv. Mr. Shankar Divate, AOR Mr. Rohit Jain, Adv. Mr. Aniket D. Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Kavita Jha, AOR Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv. Mr. Saurabh Rajpal, Adv. Mr. Naveen Kumar, Adv. Ms. Shrinjan Khosla, Adv. For M/S. Aura & Co., AOR

Table of Content
1. analysis of the legal context and historical implications (Para 2 , 4 , 15)
2. factual background of the case (Para 3 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 10)
3. constitutionality and enforceability of the amended act (Para 14)

JUDGMENT :

N.V. RAMANA , CJI.

1. Leave granted.

2. This case involves a tussle between the normative and positivist positions regarding the nature of a crime and punishment. Treating the Constitution as a flag post, a result of this tussle is sought in the following deliberation.

3. This appeal is filed against the impugned judgment dated 12.12.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta in APO No. 8 of 2019 along with Writ Petition No. 687 of 2017.

4. The short legal question which arises for this Court’s consideration is whether the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act , 1988 [for short ‘the 1988 Act’], as amended by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 [for short the ‘2016 Act’] has a prospective effect. Although a purely legal question arises in this appeal, it is necessary to have a brief factual background in mind b


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top