*Revised for appearance ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.6 SECTION XVII-B S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 7140/2022 S. RAJENDRAN Appellant(s)

VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (BENAMI PROHIBITION) & ORS. Respondent(s)

[HEARD BY : HON. PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA AND HON. ATUL S.

CHANDURKAR, JJ. ]

IA No. 152232/2022 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION IA No. 152226/2022 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES WITH C.A. No. 6971/2025 (XVII-B)

FOR PERMISSION TO FILE APPEAL ON IA 185257/2022 IA No. 259485/2024 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS IA No. 185261/2022 - EX-PARTE STAY IA No. 185262/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED

JUDGMENT

IA No. 187236/2022 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES C.A. No. 6661/2023 (XVII-B)

IA No. 216540/2024 - PERMISSION TO FILE APPLICATION FOR DIRECTION IA No. 193761/2023 - STAY APPLICATION C.A. No. 6662/2023 (XVII-B)

IA No. 196435/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED

JUDGMENT

IA No. 196439/2023 - STAY APPLICATION Date : 24-02-2026 These appeals were called on for pronouncement of Judgment today.

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sajan Poovayya, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Bharadwajaramasubramaniam R., Adv.

Mr. Diwaagar R.s., Adv.

Mr. Priyadarshi Banerjee, Adv.

Signa ture No t Ve rifi ed Mr. Rishabh Singhle, Adv.

Digita lly s ign ed b y Ms. Leelavathi P., Adv.

KAPIL TANDON Date: 2026.02.27 Reason:

Mr. Gokulnath S., Adv.

Ms. Raksha Agrawal, Adv.

Mr. Harshvardhan Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Sujoy Chatterjee, AOR Mr. Rajiv Shakdher, Sr. Adv.

Mr. B.dhanaraj, Adv.

Mr. G.ananda Selvam, Adv.

Mr. Habib Muzaffar, Adv.

Mr. Karan Khetani, Adv.

Mr. Jonathan Ivan Rajan, Adv.

Ms. Sangamithra Loganathan, Adv.

Mr. Anand Dilip Landge, AOR Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Krishnan Agarwal, Adv.

Ms. Elamathi M.s., Adv. Mr. Harnoor Singh, Adv.

Mr. Shivendra Singh, AOR Mr. Labeeb Faaeq, Adv.

Ms. Nandini Kaushik, Adv.

Mr. Siddharth Venugopal, Adv.

Ms. Umang Motiyani, Adv.

Ms. Prakriti Rastogi, Adv.

Ms. Aryama Singh Rajput, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. S Dwarakanath, A.S.G.

Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv.

Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Adv. Mrs. Gargi Khanna, Adv. Mr. Sachin Sharma, Adv.

Mrs. Madhulika Upadhyay Aor, Adv.

Mr. Shashank Bajpai, Adv.

Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mr. S. Dwarakanath, A.S.G.

Mr. Rajat Vaishnaw, Adv.

Mr. Prabhakar Yadav, Adv.

Mr. H. Siddharth Bhandari, Adv.

Mr. Mudit Bansal, Adv.

Mr. S. Vijay Adithya, Adv.

Mr. Abhyudey Kabra, Adv.

Ms. Madhulika Upadhyay, AOR Mr. P B Suresh, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR Mr. K Gowtham Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Vishwaditya Sharma, Adv.

Ms. Deeksha Gupta, Adv.

Ms. Harsha Tripathi, Adv.

Mr. Subornadeep Bhattacharjee, Adv.

Mr. Rohan Dewan, Adv.

Ms. Aakriti Priya, Adv.

Mr. Udayaditya Banerjee, Adv.

Ms. Suganya T.s., Adv.

Mr. Parikshit Pitale, Adv.

Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Krishnan Agarwal, Adv.

Ms. Elamathi M.s., Adv. Mr. Harnoor Singh, Adv.

Mr. Shivendra Singh, AOR Mr. Labeeb Faaeq, Adv.

Ms. Nandini Kaushik, Adv.

Mr. Siddharth Venugopal, Adv.

Ms. Umang Motiyani, Adv.

Ms. Prakriti Rastogi, Adv.

Ms. Aryama Singh Rajput, Adv.

Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Adv.*

Mr. Sahil Raveen, Adv.*

Ms. Aanchal Tikmani, AOR

1. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon’ble Mr.

Justice Atul S. Chandurkar.

2. The Appeals are dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 5 lakhs each in terms of the signed reportable judgment. Paragraph nos. 26-

28 of the Judgment read as under:-

“26. Returning to the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the appellants could not have challenged the attachment order passed under the Benami Act before the statutory authorities under the IBC. We have no doubt in our mind that such invocation is not bonafide and is actually intended to circumvent and interdict the procedures contemplated under the Benami Act. Further, filing of appeal before NCLAT, despite the finding that the appropriate forum is not NCLT, but the statutory authorities under the Benami Act, leaves no doubt that it is a compl