https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448288 The Madras HC dismissed writ petitions challenging provisional attachment orders under Section 24(3) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act. The petitioners, who were directors of a company and in judicial custody when the attachment order was passed, argued the order was invalid. The HC held that provisional attachment requires only prima facie suspicion of benami transaction, not stringent proof like civil attachment proceedings. The court noted that adequate safeguards exist within the Act's scheme, including show cause notices and adjudication processes. The provisional nature of the attachment and pending adjudication proceedings provided sufficient protection for the petitioners' rights. en-us Fri, 28 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Jan 2024 08:33:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448288 The Madras HC dismissed writ petitions challenging provisional attachment orders under Section 24(3) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act. The petitioners, who were directors of a company and in judicial custody when the attachment order was passed, argued the order was invalid. The HC held that provisional attachment requires only prima facie suspicion of benami transaction, not stringent proof like civil attachment proceedings. The court noted that adequate safeguards exist within the Act's scheme, including show cause notices and adjudication processes. The provisional nature of the attachment and pending adjudication proceedings provided sufficient protection for the petitioners' rights. Case-Laws Benami Property Fri, 28 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448288