2021 (2) TMI 314

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the Respondents P.C.: Heard Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Suresh Kumar, leaned counsel for the respondents. 2. Primary challenge made in the writ petition is to the order dated 11.05.2020 passed by respondent No. 4 as the adjudicating authority under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 (in brief "the Act"). 3. We find that by the said order....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o the adjudicating authority, the same was overlooked by taking the view that irrespective of the technical flaws committed by the initiating officer, what is required to be determined is the fact whether transaction is benami transaction or not; clarifying that it is not necessary to deal with the procedural provisions of the Act at the stage of adjudication for confirmation of provisional attach....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....petitioner had filed writ petition No. 2738 of 2019 before this Court. When the order dated 11.5.2020 was passed by respondent No. 4, petitioner had filed an interim application for stay of the said order. This court took the view that after passing of the order dated 11.5.2020, proceedings against the petitioner stood culminated; therefore, writ petition No. 2738 of 2019 did not survive. On leave....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....roval for passing of an order of provisional attachment under section 24(4)(a)(i) of the Act, whether such an order can be sustained when approval is granted post-facto. The second issue of substance is whether the amended definition of benami transaction in section 2(9)(D) of the Act can be applied retrospectively or it would have a prospective application. 7. The matter would require further ....