Delhi High Court
Ramaa Advisors Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India & Anr. on 5 August, 2022
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 05th AUGUST, 2022
IN THE MATTER OF:
+ LPA 430/2022 & CM APPLs. 31585/2022, 31586/2022, 31587/2022
RAMAA ADVISORS PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Ms. Niyati
Kohli, Mr.AnkitBanati, Mr.Shravan
Niranjan, Mr. Prabhav Bahuguna,
Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Ms.
Nidhi Raman, CGSC along with Mr.
Amit Gupta, Mr. Rishav Dubey, Mr.
Saurabh Tripathi, Ms. Rupali Kapoor,
Mr. Zubin Singh, Advocates for UOI
Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Senior Standing
Counsel with Mr. Vipul Aggarwal,
Mr.ParthSemwal, Advocates
+ LPA 431/2022 & CM APPLs. 31609/2022, 31610/2022, 31611/2022
OPTIMA INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Vijay Aggarwal, Mr.Hardik
Sharma, Ms.Barkha Rastogi,
Mr.Abhiraj, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ...... Respondents
Through: Mr.
Chetan Sharma, ASG with Ms.Nidhi
Raman, CGSC along with Mr. Amit
Gupta, Mr. Rishav Dubey, Mr.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
SINGH KIRMOLIYA LPA 430/2022 etc. Page 1 of 11
Signing Date:06.08.2022
13:47:56
Saurabh Tripathi, Ms.Rupali Kapoor,
Mr.Zubin Singh, Advocates for UOI
Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Senior Standing
Counsel with Mr.Vipul Aggarwal,
Mr.ParthSemwal, Advocates
+ LPA 432/2022 & CM APPLs. 31616/2022, 31617/2022, 31618/2022
COBOL TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Ms.Niyati Kohli,
Mr.AnkitBanati, Mr.Shravan
Niranjan, Mr. Prabhav Bahuguna,
Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with
Mr.Kirtiman Singh, CGSC along with
Ms.Kunjala Bhardwaj, Advocate for
UOI
Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Senior Standing
Counsel with Mr.Vipul Aggarwal,
Mr.ParthSemwal, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
JUDGMENT
1. The Appellants seek to challenge the common judgment dated
04.05.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the Writ
Petitions bearing Nos. W.P.(C) 12846/2021, W.P.(C) 12847/2021 and
W.P.(C) 12853/2021.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:06.08.2022
13:47:56
2. The Appellants had filed the said Writ Petitions praying for the
following relief:
―a. Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of a
Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or
Direction thereby Quashing the notification dated
08.10.2021 issued by the Ministry of Finance,
Government of India, to the extent whereby it has
brought to end the ability of the existing Member
Adjudicating Authority, New Delhi to deliver orders /
judgments in the matters in which orders are reserved
by appointing a new officer to the post of Member,
Adjudicating Authority at New Delhi, for Prohibition
for Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, without
providing any time period for him to pass orders /
judgments though done earlier in previous
notifications, and thereby directing the concerned
Member, Adjudicating Authority to (i) pass
orders/judgment within a specified time frame (2-3
months) in respect of all cases which he has reserved
judgments after hearing arguments, in particular the
case of the Petitioner which has now undergone two
full rounds of hearing and where judgment has been
reserved now for the second time as recently as on 16th
September 2021;
OR ALTERNATIVELY
b. Issue a Writ, order or direction including a Writ in
the nature of Mandamus and/or Certiorari or any
other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, thereby
directing Respondent No. 2 Adjudicating Authority and
its concerned officer to pass orders/judgment within a
specified time frame (2-3 months) in respect of all
cases which have been heard by him and where
judgment has been reserved, in particular the case of
the Petitioner;
AND
c. Pass necessary orders and directions thereby laying
down guidelines for the Respondent No. 1 that during
issuing transfer orders, the same should have a
provision that the concerned Authority / Tribunal
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:06.08.2022
13:47:56
Member / etc. shall be authorized to pass judgments
within a relevant period of time in the matters which
have already been reserved for judgment;"
3. Shorn of details, the facts in brief, leading to the present appeals are as
follows:-
i. It is stated that on 10.08.2019, provisional Attachment Orders
were passed by the Initiating Officer under the Prohibition for
Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as
'Benami Act').
ii. It is stated that Section 7 of the Benami Act was amended by
Section 155 of the Finance Act, 2021, whereby the Competent
Authority authorized under Section 5(1) of the Smugglers and
Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act,
1976, was designated as the Adjudicating Authority competent
to exercise jurisdiction, powers and authority under the Benami
Act.
iii. It is stated that proceedings commenced before the Adjudicating
Authority, New Delhi under the Benami Act and arguments
were heard, on 01.02.2021 & 02.02.2021, and orders were
reserved on 02.02.2021 by the Adjudicating Authority, New
Delhi.
iv. A notification bearing No. S.O.966(E) dated 27.02.2021 was
issued by the Ministry of Finance stating that in respect of cases
where hearings had been concluded and orders had been
reserved, the Adjudicating Authority has time till 30.09.2021 to
pass judgments, extending the time given by the earlier
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:06.08.2022
13:47:56
notification dated 31.12.2020 wherein the time had been fixed
upto 31.03.2021.
v. Since the post of Adjudicating Authority, New Delhi was
vacant, the Member, Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai i.e. Mr.
Hari Govind Singh was given additional charge of Adjudicating
Authority, New Delhi.
vi. It is stated that Mr. Hari Govind Singh, who was given
additional charge of Member, Adjudicating Authority at New
Delhi, heard the matter pertaining to the Appellants and
reserved orders on 16.09.2021.
vii. It is stated that the Ministry of Finance vide notification bearing
No. S.O. 3814(E) dated 17.09.2021,extended the time period till
31.03.2022 for pronouncing the judgments in cases where
hearings had been concluded and orders were reserved.
viii. It is pertinent to mention that the Ministry of Finance had earlier
issued a notification dated 27.02.2021,wherein time to deliver
judgments by the Adjudicating Authority had been extended till
30.09.2021. It is also pertinent to mention that the Adjudicating
Authority, Mumbai, who had been given additional charge did
not deliver its judgment till 31.03.2022.
ix. It is stated that Office Order No.270/2021 dated 08.10.2021 was
notified by the Ministry of Finance appointing Mr. Sanjog
Kapoor to the post of Member, Adjudicating Authority at New
Delhi and, thereby the additional charge given to the
Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai, came to an end after the
appointment of Mr. Sanjog Kapoor as Member, Adjudicating
Authority at New Delhi.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:06.08.2022
13:47:56
x. The grievance of the Appellants, in short, is that Mr. Hari
Govind Singh, who was the Member, Adjudicating Authority,
Mumbai and was given additional charge as Adjudicating
Authority at New Delhi, had heard the matter, and should be
directed to pronounce the judgment in the matter reserved by
him.
xi. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and held
that the Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai had been given
additional charge of the Bench at New Delhi and, therefore,
once Mr. Sanjog Kapoor had been appointed as Adjudicating
Authority at New Delhi, Mr. Hari Govind Singh could not have
passed the judgment in the matter reserved by him since he was
no longer holding the post of Adjudicating Authority at New
Delhi.
xii. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeals have been
filed.
4. Heard learned Counsel for the Appellants and the Respondents, and
perused the material on record.
5. Mr. Vijay Aggarwal, learned Counsel for the Appellants, contends
that since Mr. Hari Govind Singh had heard the matter, he ought to have
pronounced the judgment as time had been extended in all these cases upto
31.03.2022 and he ought to have been directed to pass the judgment. He
further places reliance on the judgment of a Bench of three Judges of this
Court in Karan v. State NCT of Delhi, CRL.A. 352/2020 dated 27.11.2020.
Reliance has also been placed on the judgments of the Apex Court in
Gullapalli Nageswara Rao & Ors. v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:06.08.2022
13:47:56
Corporation &Anr., AIR 1959 SC 308 and State of M.P. v. Bhooraji & Ors.,
(2001) 7 SCC 679.
6. The facts in the present cases reveal that Mr. Hari Govind Singh was
the Adjudicating Authority, Mumbai, and was given only additional charge
to function as the Adjudicating Authority, New Delhi. On the day Mr.
Sanjog Kapoor was appointed as an Adjudicating Authority, New Delhi on
08.10.2021, Mr. Hari Govind Singh had not pronounced the judgment in the
cases pertaining to the Appellants and, therefore, on 08.10.2021, Mr. Hari
Govind Singh ceased to function as the competent authority for New Delhi.
Viewed in this light, the notification dated 17.09.2021 extending the time
period from 30.09.2021 to 31.03.2022 for pronouncing judgments in cases
where hearings had been completed and orders were reserved cannot be
applied to the present cases.
7. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the Appellants cannot be
applied to the facts of the present cases. In Gullapalli Nageswara Rao & Ors.
v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation &Anr., AIR 1959 SC
308, the issue in the case was that the matter was heard by one authority and
the judgment was pronounced by another authority, and, therefore, the ratio
of Gullapalli Nageswara Rao (supra) cannot be applied to the present case.
8. Similarly, in the case of Karan v. State NCT of Delhi, CRL.A.
352/2020, dated 27.11.2020, the facts of the case are that the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, who had heard the case was transferred after
reserving the judgment, and pronounced the judgment after his transfer. The
question that arose in the said case was whether the learned Additional
Sessions Judge even after his transfer could pronounce the judgment or not.
The Division Bench after analysing the provisions under CrPC and the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:06.08.2022
13:47:56
transfer circular held that this was merely an irregularity. The relevant
portion of the said judgment reads as under:-
―154. The ld. Addl. Sessions Judge was duly
empowered to pronounce the judgment by virtue of
Note 2 appended to the transfer order dated 13th
March, 2020. The pronouncement of the judgment by
ld. Addl. Sessions Judge is in terms of Section 353
CrPC. The delay in pronouncing the judgment is a
mere irregularity and is hereby condoned.
155. Notwithstanding validity of Note 2, the impugned
judgment is also protected by Sections 462 and 465
CrPC and the de facto doctrine.‖(emphasis supplied)
9. Similarly, the facts of State of M.P. v. Bhooraji & Ors., (2001) 7 SCC
679 also do not apply to the present cases.
10. The notification dated 17.09.2021, would apply to such of those
officers who had reserved orders, but had not pronounced it within the time
as stipulated by the notification. The said notification cannot be extended to
an officer who has ceased to occupy the post. Further, the notification dated
17.09.2021 only extended the period from 30.09.2021 to 31.03.2022 to
deliver judgments in cases where the Adjudicating Authority was yet to
deliver its judgments. The notification dated 17.09.2021 on which reliance
has been placed reads as under:-
―S.O. 3814(E).--In exercise of the powers conferred
by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Taxation and
Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain
Provisions) Act, 2020 (38 of 2020) (hereinafterreferred
to as the said Act), and in partial modification of the
notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry
of Finance, (Department of Revenue) No. 93/2020
dated the 31st December, 2020, published in the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:06.08.2022
13:47:56
Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section 3,
Sub-section (ii), vide number S.O. 4805(E), dated the
31st December, 2020 and No. 10/2021 dated the 27th
February, 2021, published in the Gazette of India,
Extraordinary, Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii),vide
number S.O. 966(E) dated the 27th February, 2021and
No. 20/2021 dated the 31st March, 2021, published in
the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section 3,
Sub-section (ii), vide number S.O 1432(E) dated the
31st March, 2021and No. 74/2021 dated25th June,
2021, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary,
Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), vide number S.O.
2580(E) dated the 25th June, 2021, (hereinafter
referred to as the said notifications), the Central
Government hereby specifies for the purpose of sub-
section (1) of section 3 of the said Act, that,--
(A) where the specified Act is the Income-tax Act, 1961
(43 of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as the Income-tax
Act) and, --
(a) the completion of any action, referred to in
clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said
Act, relates to passing of any order for imposition of
penalty under Chapter XXI of the Income-tax Act, --
(i) the 30th day of March, 2022 shall be the end
date of the period during which the time limit
specified in, or prescribed or notified under, the
Income-tax Act falls for the completion of such
action; and
(ii) the 31st day of March, 2022 shall be the end
date to which the time-limit for completion of such
action shall stand extended;
(b) the compliance of any action, referred to in
clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the
said Act, relates to intimation of Aadhaar number
to the prescribed authority under sub-section (2)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:06.08.2022
13:47:56
of section 139AA of the Income-tax Act, the time-
limit for such the compliance of such action shall
stand extended to the 31st day of March, 2022.
(B) where the specified Act is the Prohibition of
Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988, (45 of
1988)(hereinafter referred to as the Benami Act) and
the completion of any action, as referred to in clause
(a) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said Act,
relates to issue of notice under sub-section (1) or
passing of any order under sub-section (3) of section
26 of the Benami Act,--
(i) the 30th day of June, 2021 shall be the end date
of the period during which the time-limit specified in
or prescribed or notified under the Benami Act falls,
for the completion of such action; and
(ii) the 31st day of March, 2022 shall be the end
date to which the time-limit for completion of such
action shall stand extended.‖
11. Mr. Hari Govind Singh had not pronounced any judgment prior to
08.10.2021 and on that day, Mr. Hari Govind Singh, who was only holding
additional charge ceased to be Adjudicating Authority, New Delhi.
12. A writ is maintainable when there is a right. In the absence of any
right, a writ cannot be passed. The Appellant has not been able to
demonstrate violation of any right or breach of any notification which states
that an Authority should pronounce the judgment in a matter heard by it
even after the person, who heard the matter, has ceased to occupy the chair.
This Court, therefore, does not find any reason to interfere with the judgment
dated 04.05.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petitions
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:06.08.2022
13:47:56
bearing Nos. W.P.(C) 12846/2021, W.P.(C) 12847/2021, W.P.(C)
12853/2021
13. The appeals are accordingly dismissed with the above observations.
Pending applications stand disposed of.
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, C.J.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
AUGUST 05, 2022
hsk
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARIOM
Signing Date:06.08.2022
13:47:56
