https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354639 The court allowed the impleadment petitions, making Mr. RR and Archer respondents in the writ petitions. It held that the second respondent lacked jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under the Benami Act, rendering the impugned orders void and set them aside. The court did not address the retrospective application of the Amendment Act due to the lack of jurisdiction. The allegations of malafide action were not considered, and the writ petitions were allowed, quashing the impugned orders without imposing costs. en-us Thu, 25 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Dec 2019 18:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354639 The court allowed the impleadment petitions, making Mr. RR and Archer respondents in the writ petitions. It held that the second respondent lacked jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under the Benami Act, rendering the impugned orders void and set them aside. The court did not address the retrospective application of the Amendment Act due to the lack of jurisdiction. The allegations of malafide action were not considered, and the writ petitions were allowed, quashing the impugned orders without imposing costs. Case-Laws Benami Property Thu, 25 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354639