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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 18566

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, SANJEET PUROHIT
HEMRAJ DHOBHI S/O SHRI KANARAM DHOBHI – Appellant
Versus
THE INITIATING OFFICER – Respondent
CMA / 3059 / 2025



HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3162/2025 Sunita Bairwa, W/o Shri Ram Gopal Bairwa ----Appellant Versus The Initiating Officer ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3059/2025 Hemraj Dhobhi, S/o Shri Kanaram Dhobhi ----Appellant Versus The Initiating Officer ----Respondent D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3075/2025 Ram Gopal Bairwa, S/o Shri Chunni Lal Bairwa ----Appellant Versus The Initating Officer ----Respondent D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3095/2025 Pooja Bairwa, W/o Raj Kumar Bairwa ----Appellant Versus The Initiating Officer ----Respondent D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3107/2025 Banwari Lal Bairwa, S/o Late Shri Chunni Lal ----Appellant Versus The Initiating Officer ----Respondent D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3108/2025 Banwari Lal Bairwa, S/o Late Shri Chunni Lal ----Appellant Versus The Initiating Officer ----Respondent D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3122/2025 Kanta Devi, W/o Shri Ganesh Lal ----Appellant Versus The Initiating Officer ----Respondent D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3148/2025 Kanta Devi W/o Shri Ganesh Lal ----Appellant Versus The Initiating Officer ----Respondent D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3150/2025 Raj Kumar Verma S/o Late Shri Chunni Lal ----Appellant Versus The Initiating Officer ----Respondent D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3163/2025 Ganesh Lal S/o Shri Kana Ram ----Appellant Versus The Initiating Officer ----Respondent D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3168/2025 Ravi Surya Developers Private Limited ----Appellant Versus The Initiating Officer ----Respondent D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3169/2025 Hemraj Dhobhi, S/o Shri Kanaram Dhobhi ----Appellant Versus The Initiating Officer ----Respondent D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3367/2025 Ravindra Pratap Singh Parihar S/o Shri Bhagwan Singh Parihar ----Appellant Versus The Initiating Officer ----Respondent D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3373/2025 Ravindra Pratap Singh Parihar, S/o Shri Bhagwan Singh Parihar ----Appellant Versus The Initiating Officer ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gunjan Pathak with Ms. Sagrika Joshi, Mr. Yash Kacholia & Mr. Kanishk Singhal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna with Mr. Meyhul Mittal &

Mr. Sarvesh Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Order

11/09/2025 D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3162/2025 D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3075/2025 D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3095/2025 D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3107/2025 D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3148/2025 D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3150/2025 D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3163/2025 D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3169/2025 D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3367/2025 Heard.

Defect(s) pointed out by the Registry in D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3367/2025, is waived.

Mr. Siddharth Bapna, Advocate, puts in appearance on behalf of the respondent in all these appeals. His name be shown in the cause-list as counsel for the respondent.

All these appeals are admitted.

The substantial questions of law, which need to be examined in the present cases are as follows:-

“A. Whether the Ld. Appellate Tribunal has committed an error in law by failing to consider the binding ratio laid down by Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in Niharika Jain & Ors. v. Union of India and the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, both of which unequivocally held that the 2016 Amendment Act to the PBPT Act has only prospective application and does not apply to projects concieved prior to its coming into force barring any retrospectivity or retroactivity of the Act?

B. Whether the applicability of the amendment to the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions (Amendment) Act, 2016, particularly Sections 3, 5 and 53, to transactions concluded prior to 01.11.2016, is violative of Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India, which prohib

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 Back to top