MY KOLKATA EDUGRAPH
ADVERTISEMENT
regular-article-logo Saturday, 23 November 2024

HC closes proceedings against Satyendar Jain under amended Benami law

The Delhi minister's counsel claimed the Benami proceedings against him were in the nature of political persecution

PTI New Delhi Published 10.10.22, 07:02 PM
Delhi Minister Satyendar Jain

Delhi Minister Satyendar Jain File picture

The Delhi High Court Monday closed the proceedings against Delhi Minister Satyendar Jain under the amended Benami transactions law in consonance with a Supreme Court ruling.

The high court's order came while hearing a batch of petitions by Jain and others against the initiation of proceedings under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016.

ADVERTISEMENT

Accordingly and in view of the law, as declared by the Supreme Court, the writ petitions are allowed and all proceedings initiated under the enactment shall consequently stand closed, Justice Yashwant Varma said.

The high court had on September 20 said no action, coercive or otherwise, shall be taken against Jain under the amended Benami law and noted that the Income Tax department has, in another case, made a statement that while it takes recourse to the legal remedies against a Supreme Court decision on the law, there would be no action against the petitioner party.

In August, the apex court held that Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 did not have retrospective application and the authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to the coming into force of the legislation.

Jain's counsel had claimed the Benami proceedings against him were in the nature of political persecution.

Jain had filed the petition in 2017 against the proceedings initiated against him under the amended Benami law.

According to Jain, the alleged Benami transactions, from the proceeds of which certain attached assets were claimed to have been purchased, took place between 2011 and March 31, 2016, and so the amendment which came into effect in November 2016 will not apply.

Follow us on:
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT