https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418351 The court concluded that the orders by the Adjudicating Authority were valid, as they were passed within the statutory period under Section 26(7) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. The delay in communication was deemed a procedural issue, not affecting the orders' validity. The court determined that the writ petitions were premature, as the respondents had not exhausted the statutory appeal remedy under Section 46 of the Act. The court set aside the lower court's order, allowed the appeals, and directed the respondents to file an appeal within 45 days from receipt of the judgment. en-us Fri, 04 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Dec 2023 14:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418351 The court concluded that the orders by the Adjudicating Authority were valid, as they were passed within the statutory period under Section 26(7) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. The delay in communication was deemed a procedural issue, not affecting the orders' validity. The court determined that the writ petitions were premature, as the respondents had not exhausted the statutory appeal remedy under Section 46 of the Act. The court set aside the lower court's order, allowed the appeals, and directed the respondents to file an appeal within 45 days from receipt of the judgment. Case-Laws Benami Property Fri, 04 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418351