Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(ATFP) 292

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY
Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Chairman, V. Anandarajan, Member, Balesh Kumar, Member
Initiating Officer, BPU, Mumbai – Appellant
Versus
Vikas Kasliwal – Respondent
MP-PBPT-847/MUM/2025|MP-PBPT-848/MUM/2025|MP-PBPT-849/MUM/2025|MP-PBPT-850/MUM/2025|MP-PBPT-851/MUM/2025|MP-PBPT-670/SRT/2025|MP-PBPT-671/SRT/2025|MP-PBPT-688/SRT/2025|MP-PBPT-689/SRT/2025|MP-PBPT-672/SRT/2025|MP-PBPT-673/SRT/2025|MP-PBPT-676/SRT/2025|MP-PBPT-677/SRT/2025|MP-PBPT-678/SRT/2025|MP-PBPT-679/SRT/2025|MP-PBPT-694/SRT/2025|MP-PBPT-695/SRT/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Manmeet Singh Arora, Camran Iqbal, Anish Dhingra, Mohit Kumar
For the Respondents: Ayushman Sharma, Subhash Ch. Charya, Chanakya Baruah, Mayank Sharma

When an order is based on a subsequently recalled superior court judgment, the Tribunal possesses the power to review and restore the proceedings for adjudication on merits. Furthermore, procedural delays attributed to governmental bureaucratic processes should be condoned to sub-serve the paramount interest of substantial justice.

Headnote:(A) Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 - Sections 40(2)(f) and 47 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 47 Rule 1 - Scope of review upon recall of superior court judgment - Where final orders were disposed of relying upon a judgment of the Apex Court which was subsequently recalled, liberty granted by the Apex Court to seek review allows the Tribunal to reconsider and recall its earlier orders to ensure proceedings are adjudicated on merits. (Paras 44, 49)

(B) Condonation of Delay - Government Litigant - Pragmatic approach - When the delay is occasioned by the impersonal bureaucratic machinery of a state entity, a liberal and pragmatic approach to condonation of delay is required to prevent miscarriage of public justice, preferring decision on merits over technical dismissal based on strict limitation. (Paras 58-61)

Facts of the case:
Appeals were initially disposed of by the Tribunal based on an Apex Court judgment regarding the applicability of the parent Act. Subsequently, the Apex Court recalled its judgment. Review applications were filed seeking to recall the Tribunal's orders in order to restore appeals for hearing on merit, accompanied by applications for Condonation of Delay. The opposing party argued that the review applications were barred by limitation and that the doctrine of finality of orders precluded such review.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal held that it is bound by the specific directions of the Apex Court recalling the prior judgment. The Tribunal lacks the jurisdiction to declare an order of the Apex Court per incuriam or to refuse to apply binding precedents. Given the nature of the state as a litigant and the requirement for substantial justice, the technical delay in filing the review applications is condoned, and the applications are allowed.

Issues: Whether the Tribunal has the power to review its order after the judgment on which it was based is recalled; whether a liberal approach towards Condonation of Delay is permissible for governmental entities.

Ratio Decidendi: A judicial order passed in reliance on a judgment that has been recalled ceases to hold its previous legal sanctity. When liberty is granted by the Apex Court to seek review in cases decided under the now-recalled judgment, the appropriate judicial outcome is the restoration of the original matter for fresh adjudication on its merits to prevent discrimination and ensure substantial justice.

Result: Applications allowed and appeals restored.

Table of Content
1. establishing the procedural background for review after apex court judgment recall. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. analysis of review petition grounds following apex court order in ganpati dealcom. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
3. interpreting the scope of apex court review recall and tribunal jurisdiction. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
4. evaluation of precedents regarding review petition constraints and precedent hierarchy. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
5. addressing whether subsequent legal changes constitute valid grounds for judicial review. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
6. substance over form in procedural applications despite citation of incorrect legal sections. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49)
7. applying a liberal approach in condoning delay for substantial justice in government litigation. (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64)

Heard both the parties. The Review Applications and Condonation of Delay (CoD) applications have been filed to seek review of the Orders dated 15.12.2022 and 30.11.2022 passed by this Tribunal. It is supported by applications for CoD. The similar review applications and CoD applications were allowed by this Tribunal by a detailed order dated 10.07.2025 in the Review Application No. MP-FPA-PBPT/1553/DLI/2024 in Appeal No. FPA-PBPT-1113/DLI/2020 titled as Abdullah Ali Balsharaf & Ors. versus The Initiating Officer, BPU, Delhi which is quoted hereunder:-

“The Review/Rectification applications have been filed with the prayer to review and recall the final order passed by this Tribunal. It is in the light of the order dated 18.10.2024 passed by the Apex Court on a Review Petition in the case of Union of India versus Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2981

2. The order of this Tribunal sought to be reviewed was passed on an appeal preferred by the appellant to challenge the order of the Adjudicating Authority. The appeal was filed touching the factual and legal issues involved therein. During the pendency of the appeals preferred against the order of the Adjudicating Authority confirming or denying the Provisional Attachment Orders (PAO), the Apex Court decided a batch of matters in the case of Union of India and another versus Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1064. In the said judgment, apart from many other issues, the issue regarding the prospective or retrospective application of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 ( in short “the Amending Act of 2016”) to the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act of 1988 ( in the short “the Act of 1988) was also decided. It was held that any transaction before the date of Amending Act of 2016 would not be governed by the amended provisions.

3. The Union of India preferred a Review Petition before the Apex Court against the judgment in the case supra. This Tribunal, however, disposed of the appeals in the light of the judgment in the case of Ganpati Dealcom (supra) without touching the factual and legal issues in view of the agreement of the parties. It is, however, reserving right of the parties to take appropriate remedies which includes a review in case the Apex Court reviews its judgement in the case of Ganpati Dealcom (supra). The fact brought on record is that the Apex Court vide its order dated 18.10.2024 recalled its judgment in the case of Ganpati Dealcom (supra) and therefore these Review Petitions.

4. The review/ Rectification applications are supported by application of Condonation of Delay. The application for Condonation of Delay so as the review applications were opposed by the Counsel for the non-applicant and while addressing those applications, arguments were made finally and accordingly we would decide the application for Condonation of Delay and also the Review Application by this order.

5. The application for Condonation of Delay

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(ATFP) 292

Cases Referred (1)