UNION OF INDIA & ANR versus M/S GANPATI DEALCOM PVT. LTD.

Citation: [2024] 10 S.C.R. 2183 · Decided: 18-10-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, MANOJ MISRA

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 10 S.C.R. 2183 : 2024 INSC 799
Union of India & Anr. 
v. 
M/s Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd.
Review Petition (Civil) No. 359 of 2023 
in 
Civil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022
18 October 2024
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI,  
Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Manoj Misra, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether a challenge to the constitutional validity of a statutory 
provision can be adjudicated upon in the absence of a lis and 
contest between the parties.
Headnotes†
Ground for recall for judgment – Supreme Court declared 
unamended provisions of the Prohibition of Benami Property 
Transactions Act 1988 unconstitutional – Held not permissible – 
There was no challenge to the constitutional validity of the 
provisions – No adjudication on the constitutional validity of 
a law without there being any contest between the parties – 
Submissions by the parties do not address the issue of 
constitutional validity. [Paras 5-6]
Effect of recall – The recalled proceedings shall stand 
restored for fresh adjudication – Where any other proceedings 
have been disposed of by relying on the judgment that has 
been recalled – Aggrieved party may seek review of such 
proceedings. [Paras 6-7]
Held: (1) 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. [Paras 5-6]; (2) Recall of judgment 
is permissible where a judgment adjudicated the challenge to the 
constitutional validity of a statutory provision without a lis and 
contest between the parties. [Paras 6-7]
Case Law Cited
Union of India and Another v. Ganpati Dealcom Private Ltd,  
2022 INSC 853 – recalled.
2184
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
List of Acts
Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016; 
Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.
List of Keywords
Constitutional validity; Without contest; Without lis; Recall; Review.
Case Arising From
INHERENT JURISDICTION: Review Petition (Civil) No. 359 of 2023
In
Civil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.08.2022 of the Supreme 
Court of India in C.A. No. 5783 of 2022.
Appearances for Parties
Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Suryaprakash V Raju, A.S.G., 
Vikramjit Bannerjee, Siddharth Sinha, Zoheb Hussain, S A Haseeb, 
Mrs. Aakansha Kaul, Bhuvan Mishra, Ritwiz Rishabh, Kanu Agarwal, 
Raj Bahadur Yadav, Advs. for the Petitioners.
Ajay Vohra, Ms. Manisha T Karia, Sr. Advs., Ankit Anandraj Shah, 
Aniket, Ms. Bhoomija Verma, Abhimanyu Singh, Shantanu Singh, 
Ravi Sehgal, Pai Amit, Deepin Deepak Sahni, Ms. Ananya Arora, 
Ms. Shreya Gupta, Anandh K, Ms. Iyer Shruti Gopal, Advs. for 
the Respondent.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
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 Ltd.1 The only question which was 
framed for consideration by this Court was in the following terms:
1	
[2022] 12 SCR 320 : (2023) 3 SCC 315
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 
2185
Union of India & Anr. v. M/s Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd.
"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 question arises in this appeal, it is necessary to 
have a brief factual background in mind before we 
advert to the analysis.”
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

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.