Can Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016, be applied retrospectively? #SupremeCourt to rule today
CJI NV Ramana led bench to deliver judgment in a plea preferred by Centre against a Calcutta HC order holding that that 2016 amendment Act was prospective in nature
CJI NV Ramana led bench to deliver judgment in a plea preferred by Centre against a Calcutta HC order holding that that 2016 amendment Act was prospective in nature
SC: Indian jurisprudence has matured and it is manifest that courts have read down any such provision which hampers the criminal justice system. We can only recommend that utility of independent forfeiture provision needs to be used cautiously
#BenamiTransactions
#BenamiTransactions
BREAKING SC: We hold section 3(2) of 1988 unamended act is declared as UNCONSTITUTIONAL. and thus 3(2) of 2016 is also DECLARED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
#BenamiTransactions
#BenamiTransactions
BREAKING
SC: We hold that there is only prospective effect of the 2016 act and thus all the actions taken before the amended act also is set aside. There is no retrospective effect of such a provision
#BenamiTransactions
SC: We hold that there is only prospective effect of the 2016 act and thus all the actions taken before the amended act also is set aside. There is no retrospective effect of such a provision
#BenamiTransactions
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
