Court revives proceedings against Bhujbal, kin in ‘benami assets’ case

In 2021, the Income Tax department had initiated proceedings under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, against the Bhujbals and others including Satyan Appa Kesarkar, director of the Parvesh Constructions Private Limited, Devisha Infrastructure and Armstrong Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. Following this, a magistrate court in November 2021 had issued summons to them. Bhujbal and others challenged the order before the Bombay High Court.

In 2023, the High Court, relying on a judgment of the Supreme Court, ordered for the cases to be quashed. The Supreme Court order had said that amendments made to the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 brought by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 do not have retrospective effect.

At the time, however, a review petition on this issue was also pending in the Supreme Court. The HC had therefore said that Income Tax will have the liberty to revive the proceedings if the Supreme Court reviews its order on the issue.

The order of the Supreme Court in a case titled Union of India vs Ganpati Dealcom Pvt Ltd, was under challenge in a review petition, which was subsequently allowed. While deciding the petition, the Supreme Court also said that cases disposed of based on its previous order, can be reviewed if the aggrieved party approaches court. Based on this, the Income Tax sought restoration of the cases against Bhujbals and others.

“When the review petition is allowed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, thereby expressly setting aside the earlier precedent, and when there is specific direction of the Hon’ble High Court to revive the proceeding, this Court has left with no option but to restore the original proceeding,” special judge Satyanarayan R Navander said on Tuesday, directing for the records and proceedings to be called from the record department.

Bhujbals’ lawyer had opposed the IT department’s plea stating that the petition in the high court was decided not only on technical grounds but also on merit and hence the restoring of the case should not be allowed. The special court, however, said that the order had not only dealt with merits of the case and was only based on the precedent of the Supreme Court, hence the case can be restored.