TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 541X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... various shell companies is a benami transaction within the meaning of Section 2 A (9) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 - as contended on the side of the appellants that Section 5 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, as amended by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 will have retrospective effect and therefore, the common order passed by the Tribunal, to the contrary, is liable to be interfered with. HELD THAT:- Today, when the matters were taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for both sides in unison, submitted that a batch of appeals challenging the very same impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal, was disposed of, by this court, by passing a det ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lhi, in the appeals filed by the respondent(s) under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 (Act No.43 as amended in 2016), the appellants have preferred these civil miscellaneous appeals before this court. 2. Today, when the matters were taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for both sides in unison, submitted that a batch of appeals viz ., C.M.A.No.1380 of 2023 etc . cases, challenging the very same impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal, was disposed of, by this court, by passing a detailed judgment on 17.11.2023, the relevant passage of which is usefully extracted below: 6. The issue involved in this batch of appeals lies in a narrow campus. It is vehemently contended on the side of the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g officer in reference to the alleged benami transaction of a period prior to the Amendment Act of 2016. For better appreciation, the operative portion of the said decision of the Honourable Supreme Court is extracted below: In view of the above discussion, we hold as under: a) Section 3 (2) of the unamended 1988 Act is declared as unconstitutional for being manifestly arbitrary. Accordingly, Section 3 (2) of the 2016 Act is also unconstitutional as it is violative of Article 20 (1) of the Constitution. b) In rem forfeiture provision under Section 5 of the unamended Act of 1988, prior to the 2016 Amendment Act, was unconstitutional for being manifestly arbitrary. c) The 2016 Amendment Act was not merely procedural, rath ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or consideration before the Telengana High Court in Nutrient Marine Foods Ltd. vs. Adjudicating Authority, Chennai [(2023) 152 taxmann.com 86 (Telengana)] and it was observed as follows: It is submitted that the present writ petitions are covered by the common judgment delivered in Neopride Pharmaceuticals Ltd., vs. Adjuidcating Authority (W.P. No. 33191 of 2022, dated 13-09-2022) and batch which were allowed. In the said case the Court took the view that section 2 (9) (a) and 2 (9) (c) inserted by the Amendment Act, 2016 are prospective in nature because these two provisions have significantly and substantially widened the definition of 'benami transaction' than as was there in the unamended Benami Property Act of 1988. Fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner (s) contend that review of the said judgment is pending. 2. Since as of now the issue stands covered by the judgment in the case of Ganapati Dealcom (supra) we dismiss this special leave petition for the same reasons and ground. 3. Delay, if any, is condoned. 4. However, liberty to the petitioners to approach this Court again by filing a fresh petition in case the review petition (s) is allowed, is kept reserved. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. 9. In view of the above, this court is of the opinion that as on date, the decision of the Hon'ble supreme court in Union of India v. Ganapati Dealcom Pvt Ltd (supra) holds the field and hence, the arguments advanced on the side of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Coordinate Bench has doubted its correctness. In this regard, we lay down the position in law. We make it absolutely clear that the High Courts will proceed to decide matters on the basis of the law as it stands. It is not open, unless specifically directed by this Court, to await an outcome of a reference or a review petition, as the case may be. it is also not open to a High Court to refuse to follow a judgment by stating that it has been doubted by a later Coordinate Bench. In any case, when faced with conflicting judgments by Bench of equal stength of this Court, it is the earlier one which is to be followed by the High Courts, as held by a 5 Judge Bench in National Insurance Company Limied v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680. The High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
