TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Review petition seeking prospective application of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 and quashing of attachments dismissed</h1> <h3>Union Of India & Ors. Versus Virendra Amrutbhai Patel</h3> Review petition seeking prospective application of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 and quashing of attachment orders is ... 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. Delay in filing condoned. The Court disagreed with a three-Judge Bench observation in Union of India v. M/s Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. that: '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.' The Court relied on an earlier three-Judge decision in Government of NCT of Delhi v. KL Rathi Steels Limited, which interpreted the Explanation to Rule 1 of Order XLVII, CPC. That Explanation provides that 'The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.' Because the KL Rathi precedent is co-equal and prior in time and was overlooked by the Ganpati Bench, the Court declined to grant liberty to seek review and dismissed the review petition; pending applications stand disposed of.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
