Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Union Of India vs M/S. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd

Supreme Court18 October 2024Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha · Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

A challenge to the constitutional validity of a statutory provision cannot be adjudicated upon in the absence of a lis and contest between the parties; a constitutional question cannot be decided if it was not squarely raised and addressed in the submissions of the parties and was not part of the legal question framed for consideration before the court.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

Reportable 2024 INSC 799 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA INHERENT JURISDICTION

Review Petition (Civil) No 359 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No 5783 of 2022

Union of India & Anr ...Petitioner(s)

Versus

M/s Ganpati Dealcom Pvt Ltd ...Respondent(s)

ORDER

1 We have heard Mr Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the

Union of India, and Mr Ajay Vohra, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondent.

2 The review has been sought in these proceedings of the judgment of a three-

Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India and Another v Ganpati Dealcom

Private Ltd1. The only question which was framed for consideration by this

Court was in the following terms:

“3. The short legal question which arises for this Court's consideration is whether the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (for short “the 1988 Act”), as amended by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 (for short “the 2016 Act”) has a prospective effect. Although a purely legal Signature Not Verified question arises in this appeal, it is necessary to have a Digitally signed by Sanjay Kumar Date: 2024.10.21 brief factual background in mind before we advert to the 14:45:20 IST Reason: analysis.”

1 (2023) 3 SCC 315

1

3 The conclusion which was arrived at by the Court, was in the following terms:

“127.1.Section 3(2) (sic Section 3) of the unamended 1988 Act is declared as unconstitutional for being manifestly arbitrary. Accordingly, Section 3(2) of the 2016 Act is also unconstitutional as it is violative of Article 20(1) of the Constitution.

127.2. In rem forfeiture provision under Section 5 of the unamended 1988 Act, prior to the 2016 Amendment Act, was unconstitutional for being manifestly arbitrary.

127.3. The 2016 Amendment Act was not merely procedural, rather, prescribed substantive provisions.

127.4. In rem forfeiture provision under Section 5 of the 2016 Act, being punitive in nature, can only be applied prospectively and not retroactively.

127.5. The authorities concerned cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to the coming into force of the 2016 Act viz. 25-10-2016. As a consequence of the above declaration, all such prosecutions or confiscation proceedings shall stand quashed.

127.6. As this Court is not concerned with the constitutionality of such independent forfeiture proceedings contemplated under the 2016 Amendment Act on the other grounds, the aforesaid questions are left open to be adjudicated in appropriate proceedings.”

4 The Court has declared Section 3(2) of the unamended provisions of the

Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act 1988 as unconstitutional for

being manifestly arbitrary and as violative of Article 20(1) of the Constitution.

The provisions of Section 5 of the unamended Act, prior to the Amendment of

2016, have been declared to be unconstitutional on the ground that they are

manifestly arbitrary.

5 It is not disputed that there was no challenge to the constitutional validity of the

unamended provisions. This is also clear from the formulation of the question

2 which arose for consideration before the Bench in paragraph 3 of the judgment,

which has been extracted above. In the submissions of parties which have been

recorded in the judgment, the issue of constitutional validity was not squarely

addressed.

6 A challenge to the constitutional validity of a statutory provision cannot be

adjudicated upon in the absence of a lis and contest between the parties. We

accordingly allow the review petition and recall the judgment dated 23 August

2022. Civil Appeal No 5783 of 2022 shall stand restored to file for fresh

adjudication before a Bench to be nominated by the Chief Justice of India on the

administrative side.

7 Where any other proceedings have been disposed of by relying on the judgment

of this Court in Ganpati Dealcom Private Ltd (supra), liberty is granted to the

aggrieved party to seek a review in view of the present judgment.

8 Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

…………...…...….......………………........CJI. [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]

…..…..…....…........……………….…........J. [Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha]

…..…..…....…........……………….…........J. [Manoj Misra] New Delhi;

October 18, 2024

-S-

3 ITEM NO.301 COURT NO.1 SECTION XVI

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

R.P.(C) No. 359/2023 in C.A. No. 5783/2022

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

M/S. GANPATI DEALCOM PVT. LTD. Respondent(s)

(WITH IA No. 17066/2023 - EARLY HEARING APPLICATION, IA No. 163121/2022 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES, IA No. 163115/2022 - STAY APPLICATION)

WITH SLP(C) No. 15079/2024 (XII) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.139136/2024-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.139137/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)

SLP(C) No. 17573/2024 (XIV) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.133559/2024-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.133560/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)

SLP(C) No. 14897/2024 (III) (WITH IA No.131794/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 131794/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)

SLP(C) No. 14898/2024 (III) (WITH IA No.139622/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 139622/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)

Diary No(s). 27030/2024 (III) (WITH IA No.187819/2024-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.187821/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.187820/2024-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS)

Diary No(s). 29027/2024 (III) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.163374/2024-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.163375/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)

Diary No(s). 32360/2024 (III)

4 (WITH IA No.186219/2024-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.186214/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)

Diary No(s). 33397/2024 (III) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.192799/2024-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.192800/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)

SLP(C) No. 22369/2024 (XII) (WITH IA No.208197/2024-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.208196/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)

Diary No(s). 38691/2024 (XII) (WITH IA No.225956/2024-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.225957/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)

Diary No(s). 39495/2024 (III) (WITH IA No.222694/2024-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.222693/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)

Diary No(s). 39919/2024 (III) (WITH IA No.230170/2024-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.230171/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)

Diary No(s). 40165/2024 (XII) (WITH IA No.220601/2024-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.220600/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)

Diary No(s). 40204/2024 (XII) (WITH IA No.226097/2024-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.226098/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)

Diary No(s). 40208/2024 (XII) (WITH IA No.217588/2024-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.217589/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)

Diary No(s). 40209/2024 (XII) (WITH IA No.224078/2024-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.224079/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)

Diary No(s). 40212/2024 (XII) (WITH IA No. 229940/2024 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 229942/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)

Diary No(s). 40627/2024 (III) (WITH IA No.214801/2024-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.214796/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)

Diary No(s). 40707/2024 (XII) (WITH IA No.226347/2024-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA

5 No.226348/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)

Diary No(s). 40913/2024 (XII) (WITH IA No.220124/2024-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.220125/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)

Diary No(s). 41598/2024 (XII) (WITH IA No. 231878/2024 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 231879/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)

Diary No(s). 44254/2024 (XII) (WITH IA No. 230517/2024 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 230516/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)

Date : 18-10-2024 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Suryaprakash V Raju, A.S.G. Mr. Vikramjit Bannerjee, Adv.

Mr. Siddharth Sinha, Adv.

Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Adv.

Mr. S A Haseeb, Adv.

Mrs. Aakansha Kaul, Adv.

Mr. Bhuvan Mishra, Adv.

Mr. Ritwiz Rishabh, Adv.

Mr. Kanu Agarwal, Adv.

Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Ankit Anandraj Shah, AOR Mr. Aniket, Adv.

Ms. Bhoomija Verma, Adv.

Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Adv.

Mr. Shantanu Singh, Adv.

Mr. Ravi Sehgal, Adv.

Mr. Pai Amit, AOR

Ms. Manisha T Karia, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Deepin Deepak Sahni, Adv.

Ms. Ananya Arora, Adv.

Ms. Shreya Gupta, Adv.

Mr. Anandh K, Adv.

Ms. Iyer Shruti Gopal, AOR

6 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

1 The review petition is allowed in terms of the signed order and the judgment

dated 23 August 2022 is recalled. Civil Appeal No 5783 of 2022 shall stand

restored to file for fresh adjudication before a Bench to be nominated by the

Chief Justice of India on the administrative side.

2 Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

Special Leave Petitions

1 Some Special Leave Petitions have been directed to be tagged with the Review

Petition.

2 Delay is condoned and notice is issued in those Special Leave Petitions.

3 Tag all the Special Leave Petitions with Civil Appeal No 5783 of 2022, which has

been restored to file by an order passed today in Review Petition (Civil) No 359 of

2023.

(SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (Signed order is placed on the file)

7

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free