Definition of "benami transaction" under Section 2(9)(A) and Section 2(9)(C) - substantive versus procedural provisions - retrospectivity of penal statutes - provisional attachment under Section 24 - Article 20(1) protection against retrospective penal laws - Prospective operation of amending legislation - Retrospective application of penal and confiscatory provisions - Benami transaction and benami property - In rem forfeiture / confiscation of property - Manifest arbitrariness - Protection against retrospective criminal law under Article 20(1) - Requirement of mens rea in criminal offences - Substantive due process and proportionality in deprivation of property Petition filed by the petitioners seeking review of judgment [2023 (5) TMI 402 - SC ORDER] HELD THAT:- Having carefully perused the petition for review and the papers connected therewith, we do not find any reason for reconsideration of the above-mentioned order. The review petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Application for review of judgment - Seeking to declare the provisions of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 being prospective and consequently the notices issued to the petitioner and quash the attachment order passed u/s 24(3) - Where any other proceedings have been disposed of by relying on the judgment of this Court in Ganpati Dealcom Private Ltd [2024 (10) TMI 1120 - SC ORDER (LB)] liberty is granted to the aggrieved party to seek a review in view of the present judgment.” HELD THAT:- In M/S GANPATI DEALCOM PVT LTD [2024 (10) TMI 1120 - SC ORDER (LB)] a three-Judge Bench of this Court has failed to notice the judgment of this Court in KL Rathi Steels Limited [2024 (7) TMI 811 - SUPREME COURT] which is also of a co-equal strength and prior in time. Therefore, following the judgment of this Court in KL Rathi Steels Limited (supra), we decline to grant liberty to seek review in the present case. Hence, the review petition is dismissed.

Application for review of judgment - Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions - Attachment order passed u/s 24(3) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act HELD THAT:- We express our inability to agree with the observations made in Union of India vs. M/s Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. [2024 (10) TMI 1120 - SC ORDER (LB)] which reads as under: “Where any other proceedings have been disposed of by relying on the judgment of this Court in Ganpati Dealcom Private Ltd (supra), liberty is granted to the aggrieved party to seek a review in view of the present judgment.” This is in view of an earlier judgment of K.L. Rathi Steels Limited [2024 (7) TMI 811 - SUPREME COURT]. This decision arose on a difference of opinion between a Bench of two Judges in the said case, the three-Judge Bench agreed with the view of the companion Judge (Nagarathna, J.) of the two Judge Bench and recorded its inability to be at ad idem with the Hon’ble Presiding Judge. This was on the basis of the Explanation to Rule 1 of Order XLVII of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “Code”). In M/S GANPATI DEALCOM PVT LTD [2024 (10) TMI 1120 - SC ORDER (LB)] a three-Judge Bench of this Court has failed to notice the judgment of this Court in K.L. Rathi Steels Limited (supra) which is also of a co-equal strength and prior in time. Therefore, we decline to grant liberty to seek review in the present case. Hence, the Review Petition is dismissed.

Constitutional validity of statutory provisions - adjudication in absence of lis - review and recall of earlier judgment - restoration for fresh adjudication - liberty to aggrieved parties to seek review Constitutional validity of statutory provisions - adjudication in absence of lis - review and recall of earlier judgment - restoration for fresh adjudication - Whether the earlier three-Judge Bench's declarations on the constitutionality of provisions of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 could be sustained where the constitutional validity of the unamended provisions was not challenged and no lis existed on that question. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that a challenge to the constitutional validity of a statutory provision cannot be adjudicated in the absence of a lis and contest between the parties; since the unamended provisions' constitutional validity was not squarely contested before the earlier Bench, the declarations made in that judgment could not stand. Consequently, the review petition was allowed, the earlier judgment dated 23 August 2022 was recalled, and Civil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022 was restored to the file for fresh adjudication before a Bench to be nominated by the Chief Justice of India. The Court confined its order to recalling the prior decision and restoring the appeal for fresh consideration rather than adjudicating the constitutional questions on merits. [Paras 6] Review allowed; earlier judgment recalled and the appeal restored for fresh adjudication. Liberty to aggrieved parties to seek review - Relief available to parties who acted upon the recalled judgment. - HELD THAT: - The Court granted liberty to any aggrieved party whose proceedings were disposed of by relying on the recalled judgment to seek review in light of the present order, thereby enabling affected litigants to obtain appropriate relief consequential to the recall. [Paras 7] Aggrieved parties who relied on the earlier judgment granted liberty to seek review. Final Conclusion: The review petition was allowed; the prior three-Judge Bench judgment is recalled, Civil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022 is restored for fresh adjudication, and affected parties are granted liberty to seek review where proceedings were disposed of based on the recalled decision.

Seeking to declare the provisions of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 being prospective and consequently the notices issued to the petitioner and quash the attachment order passed u/s 24(3) - HELD THAT:- Though there is delay of 457 days in filing the special leave petition, we have nevertheless heard learned counsel for the petitioners on merits. This order is passed following the order dated 06.10.2023 in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. Virendra Amrutbhai Patel & Ors [2023 (10) TMI 1562 - SC ORDER]. This special leave petition also stands dismissed on merits. In the circumstances, the application seeking condonation of delay is allowed. Delay is condoned.

Summary order. Delay of 624 days in filing the special leave petition condoned; the Special Leave Petition dismissed as covered by the three-Judge Bench decision in Union of India & Anr. Vs. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. dated 23.08.2022; pending applications, if any, disposed of.

Dismissal for delay - delay as a bar to special leave petition - merits covered by binding precedent - reliance on Union of India & Anr. v. M/s Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd.Dismissal for delay - delay as a bar to special leave petition - Special leave petition dismissed on account of gross delay in filing. - HELD THAT: - The Court recorded a gross delay of 370 days in the presentation of the special leave petition and, applying established practice that inordinate delay can justify summary dismissal, dismissed the petition on that ground. The order treats the delay as a substantive procedural bar warranting dismissal without condonation.Petition dismissed on the ground of gross delay.Merits covered by binding precedent - reliance on Union of India & Anr. v. M/s Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. - Substantive merits of the petition rejected as covered by this Court's earlier decision in Union of India & Anr. v. M/s Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. - HELD THAT: - Independently of the delay, the Court found that the legal questions raised in the petition are governed by the judgment in Union of India & Anr. v. M/s Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., and accordingly concluded that there is no merit in the petition. The reliance on the prior decision was decisive for rejecting the substantive contentions.Petition dismissed on merits as covered by the cited precedent.Final Conclusion: The special leave petition is dismissed both for gross delay (370 days) and on merits because the issues are governed by the Court's earlier decision in Union of India & Anr. v. M/s Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd.; pending applications are disposed of.

Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions - Attachment order passed u/s 24(3) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act - As decided by [2022 (9) TMI 524 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] as held authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to the coming into force of the 2016 Act, viz., 25.10.2016 and as a consequence thereof, all such prosecutions and confiscation proceedings which had been initiated came to be quashed. Prosecution and initiation of proceedings in the instant case being pursuant to the Amendment Act impugned attachment order stan HELD THAT:- There is a gross delay of 359 days in filing the Special Leave Petition. The issues which arise in this case are covered by the judgment of this Court in Union of India & Anr. vs. M/s. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. [2022 (8) TMI 1047 - SUPREME COURT] Special Leave Petition is dismissed both on the ground of delay as well as on merits.

Seeking to declare the provisions of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 being prospective and consequently the notices issued to the petitioner and quash the attachment order passed u/s 24(3) Though there is a delay of 272 days in filing the special leave petition, we have nevertheless heard learned counsel for the petitioners on merits. Since, the issues which arise in this special leave petition are covered by a judgment of this Court in Union of India and Anr. vs. Ganpati Dealcom Private Ltd. (2024 (10) TMI 1120 - SC ORDER (LB) the special leave petition stands dismissed. Application seeking condonation of delay is allowed. Delay is condoned.

Summary order. Delay condoned; application for oral hearing of the review petition allowed; review petition listed for open Court hearing on 15 March 2023 at 3.30 pm.

Definition of "benami transaction" under Section 2(9)(A) and Section 2(9)(C) - substantive versus procedural provisions - retrospectivity of penal statutes - provisional attachment under Section 24 - Article 20(1) protection against retrospective penal laws - Prospective operation of amending legislation - Retrospective application of penal and confiscatory provisions - Benami transaction and benami property - In rem forfeiture / confiscation of property - Manifest arbitrariness - Protection against retrospective criminal law under Article 20(1) - Requirement of mens rea in criminal offences - Substantive due process and proportionality in deprivation of property HELD THAT:- The issue(s) raised in these petitions is/are squarely covered by a judgment rendered by a 3-Judge Bench of this Court in Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. [2022 (8) TMI 1047 - SUPREME COURT] The petitions accordingly stand disposed of.

Appeal under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 under Section 46 - Interim or extraneous observations not to bind appellate adjudication - Treatment of impugned-judgment observations as not findings on merits - Permissibility of reliance on subsequent Supreme Court precedentInterim or extraneous observations not to bind appellate adjudication - Treatment of impugned-judgment observations as not findings on merits - Whether the observations made in the impugned judgment would affect the appeal under Section 46 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 or be treated as findings on merits. - HELD THAT: - The Court recorded that the appellants have preferred an appeal under Section 46 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. It was clarified that the observations contained in the impugned judgment on merits shall not affect the determination of the appeal and shall not be treated as findings on merits. The clarification preserves the appellants' entitlement to a full adjudication on the merits before the appellate forum, uninfluenced by the impugned court's observations which are treated as non-determinative for the appeal.Observations in the impugned judgment will not affect the appeal and shall not be treated as findings on merits; the appeal is allowed in these terms without comments on the merits.Permissibility of reliance on subsequent Supreme Court precedent - Appeal under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 under Section 46 - Whether the appellants may rely upon the subsequent judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt Ltd. in their appeal. - HELD THAT: - The Court expressly permitted the appellants to rely upon the judgment of this Court dated 23.08.2022 in Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt Ltd. for purposes of the appeal under Section 46, thereby allowing reliance on that precedent in the appellate proceedings.Appellants are permitted to rely upon the said Supreme Court judgment in the appeal.Final Conclusion: Leave granted; appeal allowed on the limited terms that observations in the impugned judgment will not be treated as findings on merits and shall not affect the appeal, and the appellants are permitted to rely on the cited Supreme Court precedent; no comments are made on the merits.

Prohibition on suits in respect of benami property - Exemption for trustee or person standing in fiduciary capacity - Application of Section 4(2) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 - Order XII Rule 6 CPC and its distinction from Order XIV Rule 1 and Order XV Rule 1 CPC where no triable issue arisesOrder XII Rule 6 CPC and its distinction from Order XIV Rule 1 and Order XV Rule 1 CPC where no triable issue arises - Whether the suit could be decreed on the basis of the written statement without recording evidence because no triable issue arises on the pleadings. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that although the Single Judge and the Division Bench referred to Order XII Rule 6 CPC, the correct approach is under Order XIV Rule 1 and Order XV Rule 1 CPC where it is found that no triable issue arises from the parties' pleadings. The pleadings did not disclose a triable controversy requiring evidence; accordingly the suit could be decreed on the basis of the pleadings. The appellants' contention that the defendant's pleas required testing only after leading evidence was rejected because the legal bar under the statute removed that defence from being a triable issue.Decree could be granted on the basis of pleadings as no triable issue arises; reliance on Order XII Rule 6 was misplaced but outcome sustained under Order XIV/ XV.Prohibition on suits in respect of benami property - Application of Section 4(2) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 - Whether the defendant could raise a defence that the property was benami such as to prevent the plaintiff's suit. - HELD THAT: - The Court observed that a plea that the property was benami is barred by the statutory prohibition, which prevents suits or defences based on rights in respect of property held benami. Because the defendant's pleaded case amounted to asserting that consideration was paid by him (or his family) and therefore the plaintiff merely held the property, that defence fell within the bar created by Section 4 and could not be allowed to defeat the plaintiff's claim on the basis of the written statement alone. Consequently, the High Court was justified in deciding the matter on pleadings.The benami defence could not be entertained to defeat the suit; the defence was barred and did not create a triable issue.Exemption for trustee or person standing in fiduciary capacity - Application of Section 4(2) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 - Whether the plaintiff (or her father) was holding the property in a fiduciary capacity so as to attract the exception to the prohibition. - HELD THAT: - The Court examined the defendant's averments and found they did not plead that the plaintiff or her father stood in any fiduciary relationship towards the defendant. The asserted fact was that consideration was paid to the plaintiff's father, but there was no allegation that the father held the property as a trustee or in a fiduciary capacity for the defendant. The exception in the proviso (trustee/fiduciary) was therefore not attracted on the pleaded case, and reliance on the fiduciary exception was rejected. The Court noted that the coparcenary exception was likewise not pleaded or applicable to the facts.The fiduciary/trustee exception does not apply on the pleaded case; the exception was not established and cannot defeat the prohibition.Final Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed. The High Court's decree upholding the Single Judge's judgment was upheld as no triable issue arose and the benami defence and claimed fiduciary exception were not available on the pleadings; the plaintiff abandons mesne profits and the deposited amount is to be refunded subject to delivery of vacant possession.

Exemption from filing certified copy - issue of notice - continuation of interim order pending appeal - stay of impugned orderExemption from filing certified copy - issue of notice - Application for exemption from filing the certified copy of the impugned order and issuance of notice - HELD THAT: - The Court allowed the application seeking exemption from filing the certified copy of the impugned order and directed that notice be issued. These procedural directions were granted to facilitate adjudication of the petition.Exemption from filing the certified copy is allowed and notice is issued.Continuation of interim order pending appeal - stay of impugned order - Whether the interim order previously passed by the Division Bench should continue to operate while the appeal before the Division Bench is pending - HELD THAT: - Counsel for the petitioner pointed out differences between a related Calcutta High Court proceeding and the present matter, but the Court noted that the appeal in the present proceeding remains pending before the Division Bench. In view of that pendency, the interim order previously passed by the Division Bench on 15.10.2019 was held to continue in operation. Consequently, the Court granted a stay of the impugned order to the extent of that continued interim order.The interim order dated 15.10.2019 shall continue to operate and the impugned order is stayed to that extent.Final Conclusion: The Court allowed exemption from filing the certified copy, issued notice, and directed that the Division Bench's interim order of 15.10.2019 shall continue to operate, staying the impugned order to that extent.

Status quo - interim relief - deposit as condition for interlocutory relief - security for withdrawal of deposited fundsStatus quo - interim relief - Possession of the property to remain unchanged pending further orders. - HELD THAT: - The Court issued notice and, as an interim measure, directed that the status quo with regard to possession of the property as on the date of the order shall be maintained. This direction preserves the existing possession without prejudicing the substantive rights or contentions of the parties and is intended as a provisional measure until the matter is adjudicated by the trial court or further orders are passed by this Court.Status quo as to possession to be maintained forthwith.Deposit as condition for interlocutory relief - security for withdrawal of deposited funds - Petitioner directed to make a deposit with the trial court and terms for respondent's withdrawal of the deposit specified. - HELD THAT: - Without prejudice to the parties' contentions, the Court conditioned continuation of interim arrangements on the petitioner depositing a specified sum with the trial court within the time directed. The order permits the respondent to withdraw the deposited amount provided the respondent furnishes security to the satisfaction of the trial court. The direction balances interim protection for the respondent with ensuring the petitioner complies with the Court's safeguard conditions.Petitioner to deposit Rs. 12,00,000 with the trial court within one month; respondent may withdraw the same upon furnishing security to the satisfaction of the court.Final Conclusion: Notice issued; interim direction to maintain possession and conditional deposit ordered-matter posted for further consideration on 07.12.2015.