Court grants interim stay, citing retrospective application issue and violation of constitutional rights.

The Court found merit in the petitioner's arguments regarding the retrospective application of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 as amended in 2016, acknowledging the violation of Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India. It also noted the lack of procedural fairness in passing the order and the impermissible extension of allegations beyond those in the show-cause notice. Consequently, the Court granted an interim stay on the order, specifically preventing the transfer of shares allotted in the financial year 2011-12, to maintain the status quo during further proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
1. Retrospective application of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 as amended in 2016.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice in passing the order.
3. Allegations exceeding those in the show-cause notice.
4. Attachment of properties beyond what was proposed in the notice.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the retrospective application of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 as amended in 2016 to transactions dating back to 2013. The contention was that giving retrospective effect to provisions with penal consequences, like Section 24 introduced by the 2016 amendment, violates Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's argument, finding merit in the submission.

2. Another issue raised was the violation of principles of natural justice in passing the order. The petitioner claimed that the order was issued without providing access to the documents and statements relied upon by the 1st respondent, denying the opportunity to rebut them or cross-examine individuals whose statements were used against the petitioner. This lack of procedural fairness was noted by the Court.

3. The petitioner also contested that the impugned order went beyond the scope of the allegations outlined in the show-cause notice dated 30.12.2019. While the notice proposed attaching movable property, specifically shares of a company and related assets, the final order included the attachment of immovable properties, buildings, machinery, and assets exceeding Rs.100 Crores, along with lease rent received by the petitioner. The Court agreed that such an extension of allegations was impermissible.

4. Lastly, the Court granted an interim stay on the order, preventing the transfer of shares allotted in the financial year 2011-12, subject to certain conditions. This decision was made after considering the arguments presented and finding merit in the petitioner's submissions. The Court's ruling aimed to maintain the status quo pending further proceedings in the case.

---