Back
SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA
Krishna Sudama Marketing Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.
1. The petitioner-Company has challenged summons issued under Section 19 of The Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as, “the Benami Act”) and the provisional order of attachment as well as extension of such order passed under Section 24 of the said Act.
2. The petitioner argues that the respondent-Authorities do not have any jurisdiction to initiate a proceeding under the Benami Act and, as such, the assumption of jurisdiction is required to be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in its entirety. Summons was issued under Section 19 of the said Act against the petitioner on December 20, 2021 and two replies were given to the same by the petitioner on January 5, 2021 and January 20, 2022 respectively. Subsequently, show-cause notices were issued under Section 24(1) of the Benami Act on March 28 and March 29, 2022 for 37 sale transactions entered into by the petitioner by separate registered sale-deeds.
3. Learned counsel argues that the basic ingredients for assumption of jurisdiction under the Benami Act are not fulfilled in the present case.
4. It is argued that the petitioner, in its repl
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a jurisdictional challenge under the Benami Act must demonstrate an ex facie erroneous assumption of jurisdiction by the authorities. The cour....
The court established that the issuance of a show cause notice under the Benami Transactions Act requires sufficient material to justify a 'reason to believe', and that mere statements without suppor....
The court emphasized that the proceedings under section 24 of the Act only require a recording of prima facie opinion as to the benami nature of the transaction and that the principles of natural jus....
The proceedings under Section 24 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, require a recording of prima facie opinion as to the benami nature of the transaction. The Act mandates ....
The exercise of cross-examination commences only after the proceedings for adjudication have commenced.
The burden of proof in benami transaction cases lies with the accusation, and failure to establish connection between beneficial ownership and shell companies results in dismissal of provisional atta....
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
