Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
News Updates

'Can't Be Sustained': Delhi High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Satyendar Jain Under Benami Act [Read Order]

Nupur Thapliyal
13 Oct 2022 9:26 AM GMT
Delhi High Court Satyendar Jain

The Delhi High Court recently quashed the proceedings initiated against Aam Aadmi Party leader Satyendar Jain under Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 1988.

Justice Yashwant Varma allowed a bunch of pleas filed by Jain and others challenging the initiation of proceedings under the Act on the ground that the same were initiated for the attachment and confiscation of properties which were acquired prior to the enforcement of the Amendment Act of 2016.

The court took note of a recent Supreme Court ruling wherein it was held that the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act 2016 cannot be applied retrospectively and Section 3(2) of the unamended 1988 Act was declared as unconstitutional for being manifestly arbitrary.

Justice Varma thus observed that the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained in the view Apex Court judgment.

"Accordingly, and in view of the law as declared by the Supreme Court, the instant writ petitions are allowed. The impugned continuation order dated 28 June 2021, Show Cause Notices dated 17 March 2021 and 26 July 2021 and proceedings emanating from aforenoted orders shall consequently stand quashed," the court ordered.

In his plea filed in the year 2017, Jain had claimed that the proceedings initiated against him were in the nature of political persecution.

It was his case that the proceeds, allegedly used in purchasing some attached assets, took place between the years 2011 and 2016 and therefore the amended statute will not be applicable.

On September 20, the court had directed that no action, coercive or otherwise, shall be taken against Jain and others under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016.

Supreme Court Declares Section 3(2) Of Benami Transactions Prohibition Act As Unconstitutional; 2016 Amendment Act To Have Only Prospective Effect


Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 961

Click Here To Read Order

Next Story