In a setback to Chhagan Bhujbal, the court on Tuesday ordered to restore four cases of benami properties against him, his son Pankaj and nephew Sameer, lodged by the income tax department. The cases were dismissed last year, after the order of the Bombay high court.
Background of the Cases
The income tax department had filed cases for allegedly holding benami properties against the members of Bhujbal families in 2021. The four separate complaints were lodged not only against Bhujbals but his firms, namely, M/s. Armstrong Infrastructure Private Limited, Parvesh Constructions Private Limited and M/s. Devisha Constructions Private Limited. The department claimed that these were shell companies created with tainted money.
The court had based on the complaint of the department, the special court had on November 17, 2021, issued process against the accused and issued summons for them to face the prosecution. Bhujbals however, challenged the order before the Bombay high court claiming that the properties are beyond the purview of the law which was passed in 2016. It was claimed that the questioned transactions were of the financial year 2008-09 and 2010-11.
Bhujbal’s had relied on the ruling of the Supreme court in case in the case of Union of India & others v/s. Ganpati Delcom Pvt. Ltd. It was held by the Apex court in the said case that the provisions of benami properties which came in 2016, cannot be applied retrospectively. Justice RN Laddha, relying on the said judgement had on December 8, 2023, ordered to quash cases against Bhujbals and their firms noting that the issue raised in their petitions was “squarely covered” by the judgment of Ganpati Delcom.
While the petition of Bhujbals was pending before the Bombay high court, the central government had sought review of the verdict given by the Supreme court in case of Ganpati Delcom. Considering this, while ordering to quash cases against Bhujbals, the Bombay high court had said that, if the order in the Ganpati Delcom case is reviewed and set aside, the income tax department can seek to restore the four cases.
Hence relying on the said condition, soon after the Supreme court allowed the petition challenging the order passed in Ganpati Delcom case, the department sought to restore four complaints against Bhujbals.
Court Restores Complaints
The lawyer for Bhujbals however, had contended that the proceedings were quashed not only on the basis of the technical reason but also on merits. The special MP and MLA judge, Satyanarayan R. Navander, while restoring the complaints, held that, “What is more important to note is that the High Court had granted liberty to the prosecution to revive the proceeding in case the review petition before the Supreme Court is allowed. This itself shows that the proceedings were quashed only on the basis of the precedent and not on merits.”
“When the review petition is allowed by the Supreme Court, thereby expressly setting aside the earlier precedent, and when there is specific direction of the High Court to revive the proceeding, this Court has left with no option but to restore the original proceeding,” the court said while restoring four cases against Bhujbals.
