Appeals dismissed as Benami Property Transaction Amendment Act Section 5 cannot apply retrospectively to past transactions

The Madras HC dismissed appeals challenging tribunal orders regarding retrospective application of Section 5 of the Benami Property Transaction (Amendment) Act, 2016. The court held that provisions cannot be applied retrospectively, following the SC decision in Union of India v. Ganapati Dealcom Pvt Ltd. The HC rejected arguments that pending review petition warranted interference with tribunal orders, emphasizing that mere pendency of review petitions cannot ground appeals. The court disposed of all civil miscellaneous appeals while allowing appellants to proceed based on the SC review petition outcome.

---

---

Issues Involved:
- Interpretation of Section 5 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 as amended in 2016
- Retrospective application of the amended provisions

Interpretation of Section 5 of the Act:
The appellants challenged the order of the Appellate Tribunal, arguing that Section 5 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, as amended in 2016, should have retrospective effect. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Ganapati Dealcom P Ltd., which held that the provisions under Section 5 of the 2016 Act, being punitive in nature, can only be applied prospectively. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Adjudicating Authority regarding benami transactions prior to the 2016 Amendment Act. The Telengana High Court also held that the amended provisions cannot be applied to transactions before the Act came into force in 2016. However, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal against this decision, stating that the issue is covered by the Ganapati Dealcom case.

Retrospective Application of Amended Provisions:
The High Court held that as of the present date, the decision in Union of India vs. Ganapati Dealcom Pvt Ltd. stands, and the provisions of Section 5 of the Amended Act, 2016 cannot be applied retrospectively. The pendency of a review petition does not warrant interference with the Tribunal's order. The Court emphasized that mere pendency of a review petition is not a valid ground to challenge the orders. Referring to a Supreme Court decision, the Court stated that High Courts should decide matters based on existing law without waiting for outcomes of references or review petitions. The appellants were given liberty to proceed based on the outcome of the review petition before the Supreme Court.

In conclusion, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals were disposed of, leaving it open for the appellants to act based on the Review Petition outcome. No costs were awarded, and all connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.

---