Prospective application of benami amendments bars retrospective attachment over a pre-amendment transaction.

Substantive amendments to the benami law operate prospectively, so a transaction entered into before the 2016 amendment could not be examined under the amended definition of benami transaction. Because the authorities proceeded on the basis of the later definition in relation to a pre-amendment transaction, the attachment and consequential adjudication were unsustainable. The record also noted that the beneficial owner had not been identified, but the decisive point was the impermissible retrospective application of the amended regime. The impugned attachment and adjudication were therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the attachment and adjudication under the Benami law could survive where the transaction was entered into before the 2016 amendment and the amended definition was applied retrospectively.

Analysis: The transaction in question was held to be prior to the commencement of the 2016 amendment. The record also showed that the beneficial owner had not been identified, and the authorities proceeded on the basis of the amended definition of benami transaction. The controlling principle applied was that the 2016 amendment introduced substantive provisions and could operate only prospectively. Consequently, proceedings relating to transactions entered into before the amendment could not be sustained on the basis of the amended regime.

Conclusion: The attachment and the impugned adjudication could not be sustained and were set aside in favour of the appellants.

Final Conclusion: Proceedings founded on the amended benami definition cannot be applied to a pre-amendment transaction, and the consequential order of attachment fails.

Ratio Decidendi: Substantive benami amendments operate prospectively, so a pre-amendment transaction cannot be proceeded against under the amended definition and related confiscatory consequences.

---