Mumbai court orders restoration of 2021 benami property case against Minister Chhagan Bhujbal, kin

A special court here on Tuesday ordered the restoration of a 2021 benami property case, in which Maharashtra Minister Chhagan Bhujbal was one of the accused, noting the Bombay High Court earlier quashed the proceeding only on “technical grounds and not on merits”.

The case has now been restored to its original stage and the next hearing is scheduled for October 6 before the special MP/MLA court in Mumbai.

The I-T department had in 2021 initiated proceeding against Bhujbal, his family members and their firms — Armstrong Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Parvesh Constructions Pvt Ltd and Devisha Constructions Pvt Ltd — regarding alleged benami assets.

The central agency had alleged they were beneficial owners involved in benami transactions during the financial years 2008-09 and 2010-11.

Notably, benami properties are those that are held by an owner through proxies.

The special court had initially issued summonses to the accused in November 2021.

However, the accused, including NCP minister Chhagan Bhujbal, his son Pankaj and nephew Sameer, had challenged the I-T department action in the Bombay High Court.

The HC in December last year dismissed the complaint against the Bhujbals over alleged benami assets held by the three companies linked to them, including properties in Mumbai and Girna Sugar Mills in Nashik, from where the NCP minister is an MLA.

The HC had quashed the case, citing a precedent set by a Supreme Court order.

Special judge for MPs/MLAs cases Satyanarayan Navander, in an order passed on Tuesday, noted that the HC, while quashing the case, “did not touch either the facts of the case or the merits of the matter”.

“(After) bare perusal of the (HC) order, it can be noted that relief of quashing of the proceeding was granted only on technical grounds,” the special judge observed.

The special court underlined that the HC had granted liberty to the prosecution to revive the proceeding in case their review petition was allowed by the Supreme Court.

This itself shows that the proceeding was quashed only on the basis of the (SC) precedent and not on merits, it noted.

“Therefore, when (prosecution’s) review petition is allowed by the Supreme Court, thereby expressly setting aside the earlier precedent, and when there is specific direction of the HC to revive the proceeding, this court is left with no option but to restore the original proceeding,” the special court held.

As a result, the case has been restored to its original stage.