Top Stories Provision u/s 5 of Amended Act of Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act being Punitive Nature can only be Applied Prospectively: Madras HC [Read Order] The Madras HC ruled on the effect of provision 5 of the Amended Act of Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act (2016) By Yogitha S. Yogesh – On January 4, 2024 3:34 pm – 2 mins read The Madras High Court Provision under section 5 of the Amended Act of Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 (Amended 2016) being Punitive Nature can only be Applied Prospectively.
The appellant revenue challenged the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988, New Delhi, in the appeals filed by the respondent(s) M/s. Navrang Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988 (Act No.43 as amended in 2016). It was vehemently contended on the side of the appellants that Section 5 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, as amended by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 will have a retrospective effect and therefore, the common order passed by the Tribunal, to the contrary, is liable to be interfered with.
It was further submitted by the Special Public Prosecutor that without going into the merits of the case, the Tribunal disposed of the appeals filed by the respondent(s) herein only by placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ganapati Dealcom P Ltd., that as of date, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ganapati Dealcom Pvt Ltd (supra) holds the field and hence, the arguments advanced on the side of the appellants that the provisions of Section 5 of the Amended Act, 2016 have to be applied retrospectively, cannot be countenanced. Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellants submitted that liberty may be given to the appellants to proceed further depending on the outcome of the Review Petition pending before the Honourable Supreme Court.
A division bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq held that “all these civil miscellaneous appeals are disposed of, leaving it open to the appellants herein to proceed further based on the outcome of the Review Petition in Diary No. 34619 of 2022 (Review Petition No. (Civil) 359 of 2023) filed by them before the Honourable Supreme Court.”