No action against Satyendar Jain under benami law: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court on Monday said that no action coercive or otherwise shall be taken by the authorities against Delhi Minister Satyendar Jain under the amended Benami lawThe order was passed by Justice Yashwant Varma while hearing a batch of petitions by Jain and several others against the initiation of proceedings under the Benami Transactions Prohibition Amendment Act 2016 against themThe judge noted that the respondents were seeking an adjournment and the revenue authority has in another case already made a statement that while it takes recourse to the legal remedies against a Supreme Court decision on the Benami law there would be no action against that petitioner partyCounsel for the income tax department advocate Zoheb Hossain told the court that nothing is happening and prayed for accommodation on account of the Solicitor General not being availableHe sought time to go through the individual facts of each petition before addressing submissions in light of the Supreme Court judgmentAlso Read Excise policy scam ED questions Delhi minister Satyendar Jain in Tihar jailThe Court also takes note of the statement made by Mr Zoheb Hossain and which stands duly recorded in another case In view of the aforesaid and since an adjournment is being sought on behalf of the respondent the Court provides that no action coercive or otherwise shall be taken against the petitioners here under the Benami Transactions Prohibition Amendment Act 2016 said the judgeLast month 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 legislationAdvocate Amit Anand Tiwari appearing for Jain said that the Benami proceedings against the AAP leader were in the nature of political persecutionJain had filed the petition in 2017 against the proceedings initiated against him under the new Benami lawAccording to Jain the alleged Benami transactions from the proceeds of which certain attached assets were claimed to have been purchased took place between 2011 to March 31 2016 and hence the amendment which came into effect in November 2016 would not applyHe had earlier prayed for a stay on the proceedings before the adjudicating authority on the grounds that the Initiating Officers order to provisionally attach the assets allegedly belonging to him was passed without allowing him to crossexamine witnessesHis counsel had told the court that he was not given any opportunity of crossexamination of witnesses whose statements have been blindly relied upon to arrive at the findingsHe had thus sought that either the proceedings under the Benami Transactions Prohibition Act be stayed or the adjudicating authority be directed not to pass a final order till his petition in the high court is finally decidedThe matter would be heard next on October 10This story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed agencies Midday accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability trustworthiness reliability and data of the text Midday managementmiddaycom reserves the sole right to alter delete or remove without notice the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever