Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the writ petitions challenging the show cause notice and provisional attachment under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 were maintainable at the stage of notice, and whether the petitioners could bypass the statutory adjudication mechanism on the ground of lack of authority of law or availability of alternative remedy.
Analysis: The show cause notice and provisional attachment were held to be only tentative steps under the statutory scheme. Under Section 24(5), the matter has to proceed to the Adjudicating Authority, which under Section 26 is required to consider the reply, make inquiries, take relevant material into account, and then decide whether the property is benami and whether attachment should be confirmed or revoked. The Court applied the settled principle that interference at the stage of a show cause notice is limited and is warranted only where the notice is wholly without jurisdiction. The petitioners' challenge based on alternative remedy was found unhelpful because the statutory forum had not yet completed the adjudicatory process, and disputed factual issues were also better left to that authority.
Conclusion: The writ challenge was not entertained at the notice stage, and the petitions failed.