As per the case facts a company purchased a property and later its shareholdings were mostly acquired by other entities whose directors were also involved in the purchasing company Subsequently ... a notice was issued under the Act suggesting the property was Benami leading to its provisional attachment The High Court ruled that the Act did not apply retrospectively and quashed the notice The Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court The question arose whether the Amendment to the Benami Property Transactions Act has a prospective or retroactive application Finally the Supreme Court declared certain provisions specifically Section of the Act unconstitutional for being arbitrary and violating constitutional rights It also found the forfeiture provision under Section of the unamended Act unconstitutional due to its arbitrary nature The Court emphasized that the Amendment Act introduced substantive changes not merely procedural ones and thus its punitive forfeiture provisions can only be applied prospectively meaning they cannot be used for transactions predating the Act The Court affirmed that existing proceedings for past transactions cannot continue under these new provisions and the prior interpretation of Section remains applicable

Read more