Chennai

Justice SM Subramaniam before whom the plea came said: “The impugned order is only a provisional attachment made under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act 2016 and accordingly a notice to show-cause under Section 26 (1) was issued to the petitioner, who is the beneficial owner.” “Therefore, the procedures as contemplated under the provisions of the Act are scrupulously followed and thus, the petitioner has to face the adjudication in the manner prescribed. Instead, he is making an attempt to prolong the issue for the purpose of escaping from the clutches of law. Thus, the writ petition is unnecessary and to be rejected,” the court held.

Further, pointing out that thus, for all purposes, it is only the commencement of proceedings under the Act and the petitioner has to respond to the show-cause notice, the court made it clear that the authorities are bound to adjudicate the matter and take an appropriate decision. Based on this, the bench directed the former warehousing corporation MD to respond by submitting their explanations/objections first.

Visit news.dtnext.in to explore our interactive epaper!

Download the DT Next app for more exciting features!

Click here for iOS

Click here for Android