Latest news with #BanaSingh
Time of India
10-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
SC halts MP high court order on Som Distilleries shares: Rs 350 cr benami asset sale stayed
Bhopal: In a significant intervention, the Supreme Court has stayed an interim order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had permitted the release and sale of equity shares worth Rs 350 crore linked to Som Distilleries Breweries & Wineries Ltd. The shares were earlier provisionally attached by the Income Tax Department's Benami Prohibition Unit (BPU), Bhopal, under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act (PBPT Act), Supreme Court's stay came in response to Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) filed by the BPU challenging the High Court's interim relief granted in Bana Singh v. Union of India & Others (WP No. 9187 of 2025).At the core of the dispute are 1.2 crore publicly listed shares of SDBWL, held in the names of eight alleged benamidars—employees and associates of the Som Group. These shares, valued at over Rs 380 crore as of March 2025, were found to be benami assets with the real ownership attributed to Jagdish Kumar Arora, promoter-director of Som provisional attachment was made under Section 24(4) of the PBPT Act by the Initiating Officer (IO), and later confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority (SAFEMA, Mumbai) under Section 26(3) in February 2025. Instead of appealing to the Appellate Tribunal under the Act, the alleged benamidars challenged the constitutional validity of the PBPT Act itself before the High this procedural bypass, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, in its order dated March 27, 2025, allowed the release and sale of the attached benami shares, directing that an equal number of shares held by Arora and the company be attached instead—an action the Union government termed ultra vires and legally SLP filed in the apex court described the High Court's action as "beyond statutory powers," emphasizing that the PBPT Act does not allow substitution of attached benami property with other assets. Operation Sindoor Pak drones enter Indian airspace, explosions heard just hours after truce deal Sirens, explosions in border districts after Pak breaks deal: What we know so far 'What happened to ceasefire?' J&K CM after explosions heard across Srinagar According to the Act, the subject benami property must be specifically confiscated after due process—not swapped with other Centre argued that the High Court's relief effectively allowed the disposal of the very assets under scrutiny, risking irreversible financial loss to the exchequer. The shares, if sold, could render the entire legal process eight benamidars had previously attempted to pre-empt proceedings by filing writs even before the provisional attachment was issued—after mere show-cause notices under Section 24(1). These earlier petitions were dismissed by the High Court in March 2024, and subsequent SLPs were rejected by the Supreme Court in May department refused to comment on the matter. Notably, the constitutional validity of the PBPT Act is already under review by the Supreme Court, following the recall of its own 2022 judgment in Union of India vs. Ganpati Dealcom. The Centre pointed out that by allowing interim relief in the form of property sale, the High Court had essentially prejudged a matter sub-judice before the top court, undermining its the next High Court hearing due on May 9, the Supreme Court granted an urgent interim stay, preventing any further action under the High Court's order. This, the Centre argued, was critical to prevent the benami shares from being sold off, a move that would not only violate the statute but could frustrate the entire benami prosecution final decision on the SLP and the fate of the contested shares will be decided in further proceedings. For now, the apex court's stay protects the attached assets and preserves the integrity of the ongoing proceedings under the PBPT Act.
Time of India
09-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Supreme Court halts Madhya Pradesh HC order on Rs 350 crore Benami shares linked to Som Distilleries
Supreme Court BHOPAL: In a significant intervention, the Supreme Court has stayed an interim order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had permitted the release and sale of equity shares worth Rs 350 crore linked to Som Distilleries Breweries & Wineries Ltd. The shares were earlier provisionally attached by the Income Tax Department's Benami Prohibition Unit (BPU), Bhopal, under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act (PBPT Act), 1988. The Supreme Court's stay came in response to Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) filed by the BPU challenging the High Court's interim relief granted in Bana Singh v. Union of India & Others (WP No. 9187 of 2025). At the core of the dispute are 1.2 crore publicly listed shares of SDBWL, held in the names of eight alleged benamidars—employees and associates of the Som Group. These shares, valued at over Rs 380 crore as of March 2025, were found to be benami assets with the real ownership attributed to Jagdish Kumar Arora, promoter-director of Som Distilleries. Operation Sindoor Air siren warning sounded in Chandigarh, residents advised to stay indoors J&K, Punjab, Rajasthan on high alert after Pak's failed drone attacks Conflict widens, India targets Lahore, Pindi, Karachi after foiling multiple Pakistani attacks The provisional attachment was made under Section 24(4) of the PBPT Act by the Initiating Officer (IO), and later confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority (SAFEMA, Mumbai) under Section 26(3) in February 2025. Instead of appealing to the Appellate Tribunal under the Act, the alleged benamidars challenged the constitutional validity of the PBPT Act itself before the High Court. The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in its order dated 27 March 2025, allowed the release and sale of the attached benami shares, directing that an equal number of shares held by Arora and the company be attached instead—an action the Union government termed ultra vires and legally untenable. The SLP filed in the apex court described the High Court's action as 'beyond statutory powers,' emphasising that the PBPT Act does not allow substitution of attached benami property with other assets. According to the Act, the subject benami property must be specifically confiscated after due process—not swapped with other holdings. The Centre argued that the High Court's relief effectively allowed the disposal of the very assets under scrutiny, risking irreversible financial loss to the exchequer. The shares, if sold, could render the entire legal process moot. The eight benamidars had previously attempted to pre-empt proceedings by filing writs even before the provisional attachment was issued—after mere show-cause notices under Section 24(1). These earlier petitions were dismissed by the High Court in March 2024, and subsequent SLPs were rejected by the Supreme Court in May 2024. The IT Department refused to comment on the matter. Notably, the constitutional validity of the PBPT Act is already under review by the Supreme Court, following the recall of its own 2022 judgment in Union of India vs. Ganpati Dealcom. The Centre pointed out that by allowing interim relief in the form of property sale, the High Court had essentially prejudged a matter sub judice before the top court, undermining its authority. With the next High Court hearing due on 9 May, the Supreme Court granted an urgent interim stay, preventing any further action under the High Court's order. This, the Centre argued, was critical to prevent the benami shares from being sold off—a move that would not only violate the statute but could frustrate the entire benami prosecution mechanism. The final decision on the SLP and the fate of the contested shares will be decided in further proceedings. For now, the apex court's stay protects the attached assets and preserves the integrity of the ongoing proceedings under the PBPT Act.
Time of India
09-05-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Supreme Court halts Madhya Pradesh HC order on Rs 350 core Benami shares linked to Som Distilleries
Supreme Court BHOPAL: In a significant intervention, the Supreme Court has stayed an interim order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had permitted the release and sale of equity shares worth Rs 350 crore linked to Som Distilleries Breweries & Wineries Ltd. The shares were earlier provisionally attached by the Income Tax Department's Benami Prohibition Unit (BPU), Bhopal, under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act (PBPT Act), 1988. The Supreme Court's stay came in response to Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) filed by the BPU challenging the High Court's interim relief granted in Bana Singh v. Union of India & Others (WP No. 9187 of 2025). At the core of the dispute are 1.2 crore publicly listed shares of SDBWL, held in the names of eight alleged benamidars—employees and associates of the Som Group. These shares, valued at over Rs 380 crore as of March 2025, were found to be benami assets with the real ownership attributed to Jagdish Kumar Arora, promoter-director of Som Distilleries. Operation Sindoor Conflict widens, India targets Lahore, Pindi, Karachi after foiling multiple Pakistani attacks Army foils Pakistan's attempts to send swarm drones across LoC Operation Sindoor: Several airports in India closed - check full list The provisional attachment was made under Section 24(4) of the PBPT Act by the Initiating Officer (IO), and later confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority (SAFEMA, Mumbai) under Section 26(3) in February 2025. Instead of appealing to the Appellate Tribunal under the Act, the alleged benamidars challenged the constitutional validity of the PBPT Act itself before the High Court. The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in its order dated 27 March 2025, allowed the release and sale of the attached benami shares, directing that an equal number of shares held by Arora and the company be attached instead—an action the Union government termed ultra vires and legally untenable. The SLP filed in the apex court described the High Court's action as 'beyond statutory powers,' emphasising that the PBPT Act does not allow substitution of attached benami property with other assets. According to the Act, the subject benami property must be specifically confiscated after due process—not swapped with other holdings. The Centre argued that the High Court's relief effectively allowed the disposal of the very assets under scrutiny, risking irreversible financial loss to the exchequer. The shares, if sold, could render the entire legal process moot. The eight benamidars had previously attempted to pre-empt proceedings by filing writs even before the provisional attachment was issued—after mere show-cause notices under Section 24(1). These earlier petitions were dismissed by the High Court in March 2024, and subsequent SLPs were rejected by the Supreme Court in May 2024. The IT Department refused to comment on the matter. Notably, the constitutional validity of the PBPT Act is already under review by the Supreme Court, following the recall of its own 2022 judgment in Union of India vs. Ganpati Dealcom. The Centre pointed out that by allowing interim relief in the form of property sale, the High Court had essentially prejudged a matter sub judice before the top court, undermining its authority. With the next High Court hearing due on 9 May, the Supreme Court granted an urgent interim stay, preventing any further action under the High Court's order. This, the Centre argued, was critical to prevent the benami shares from being sold off—a move that would not only violate the statute but could frustrate the entire benami prosecution mechanism. The final decision on the SLP and the fate of the contested shares will be decided in further proceedings. For now, the apex court's stay protects the attached assets and preserves the integrity of the ongoing proceedings under the PBPT Act.
Hindustan Times
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
India mustn't let guard down against Pak: PVC awardee Capt Bana Singh
Captain Bana Singh (retd), one of the three living Param Vir Chakra winners, on Wednesday, said India must remain alert and fully prepared for Pakistan's retaliation to New Delhi's midnight precision strikes on nine terror camps inside Pakistan and PoK. 'A rogue country, which has raised and nurtured terrorists and which is bereft of any rationale thinking can retaliate and we must remain prepared,' said Capt Bana Singh. (HT File Photo) 'A rogue country, which has raised and nurtured terrorists and which is bereft of any rationale thinking can retaliate and we must remain prepared,' he said. He said, 'India has given some reply, but it was a small response and not a big one. India tried to convey to Pakistan to stay away from orchestrating terror attacks in J&K, but it didn't refrain and compelled India to conduct precision strikes.' Captain Bana Singh, 77, hails from Kadyal village in RS Pura sector of Jammu district. In 1987, he had led the team that recaptured the Quaid post, a strategically important location on the Siachen Glacier, from Pakistan during Operation Rajiv. The post was thereafter named after him as Bana post. However, the PVC recipient said war brought destruction and ruined everything. 'War is bad and when it starts, it ruins everything. India and Pakistan are poor nations. If war erupts, our economies will be severely impacted. War doesn't bring any solution and can never be a remedy to any dispute. War should not take place, but Pakistan compelled PM Modi to take action,' he said. India's precision strike, a clear message to Pakistan: ex-DGP Vaid Former DGP of Jammu and Kashmir Police SP Vaid described India's strike as 'very good news of the day'. 'Whatever people were hoping post the Pahalgam attack from the PM, tri-services did it today. Our forces have hit their terror camps especially targeting Jaish-e-Mohammad and LeT headquarters. It was a clear message to Pakistan that don't mess with us,' he said. When asked about civilians being targeted in Poonch, the former DGP said, 'Since Pakistan does not have the guts to hit back at the Indian Army, it is targeting innocent civilians. We have hit their terror camps and no civilian population was touched.' On Pakistan's possible retaliation, he said, 'If they want to take it to the next level, India is prepared and they will have to pay heavily.'
