Back
D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, MANOJ MISRA
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. legal background of the case and key question. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. declaration of unconstitutionality of specific provisions. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. challenge to constitutional validity requires a lis. (Para 5) |
| 4. restoration for fresh adjudication and review liberty granted. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
ORDER :
1. We have heard Mr Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Union of India, and Mr Ajay Vohra, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
2. The review has been sought in these proceedings of the judgment of a three- Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India and Another v Ganpati Dealcom Private Ltd. , (2023) 3 SCC 315. The only question which was framed for consideration by this Court was in the following terms:
3
The Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, provisions were declared unconstitutional for being arbitrary, and can only be applied prospectively; constitutional challenges must see a c....
The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 prescribes substantive provisions and has a prospective effect, and concerned authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or....
The court upheld the Appellate Tribunal's decision allowing legal remedies pending Supreme Court review, emphasizing the importance of the Amendment Act's prospective application and leaving merits f....
The appellant-Department retains the right to file review petitions based on outcomes of related Supreme Court proceedings, emphasizing that the merits of the appeal remain unexamined.
The court emphasized that liberty granted to file a review petition must be recognized, pending the Supreme Court's ruling on a prior case affecting the application of the Amendment Act, 2016.
The court held that the appellant's appeal could not be assessed on merits pending the Supreme Court's decision and prior liberty granted to file for review remained valid.
The court upheld the classification of petitioners as 'Benamidars' under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act due to their failure to respond to notices or establish ownership of seize....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
