Delhi High Court – Orders
Galaxy International Hotels Llp vs Initiating Officer (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 29 April, 2026
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~112 & 102
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5886/2026, & CM APPL. 28896/2026
GALAXY INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LLP .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rohit Jain, Mr. Saksham Singhal,
Mr. Ram Krishna Rao, Advs.
versus
INITIATING OFFICER (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Counsel (appearance not given)
102
+ W.P.(C) 5834/2026 & CM APPL. 28666/2026
EDGE INFRATECH LLP .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rohit Jain, Mr. Saksham Singhal,
Mr. Ram Krishna Rao, Advs.
versus
INITIATING OFFICER (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Counsel (appearance not given)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
ORDER
% 29.04.2026
CM APPL. 28895/2026 & CM APPL. 28667/2026
1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 5886/2026, & CM APPL. 28896/2026
W.P.(C) 5834/2026 & CM APPL. 28666/2026
3. The petitioners seek for setting aside the order dated 10.07.2025
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/04/2026 at 21:49:42
passed by the Appellate Tribunal under Smugglers and Foreign Exchange
Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA) at New Delhi.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that the said tribunal exercises the
power of appellate tribunal under the provisions of the Prohibition of
Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (PBPTA). The review petition
filed by initiating officer NCT of Delhi, Benami prohibition, unit 1, has been
allowed.
5. The facts would indicate that in year 2018, respondent no. 1 initiated
the proceedings under the PBPTA against the petitioner and provisionally
attached the petitioners’ properties under Section 24(3) of the PBPTA
alleging that the petitioners were ‘benamidar’. The said attachment was
confirmed by the adjudicating authority under Section 26(3) of the PBPTA
Act on 20.04.2020.
6. The respondents had invoked Section 24 of the PBPTA Act which
was introduced in the year 2016, vide the Prohibition of Benami Property
Transactions (Amendment) Act, 2016.
7. The petitioners filed appeals before the appellate tribunal against the
attachment order and the same was allowed vide order dated 30.11.2022 on
the ground that that the Supreme Court, in Union of India and Another vs.
Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd1 (Ganpati I), had declared that, 2016
Amendments, to the PBPTA, would have prospective effect and therefore,
the transaction which took place prior to the said amendments could not be
covered.
8. In the year 2024, the Supreme Court, in Union of India and Another
1
[2023] 3 SCC 315
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/04/2026 at 21:49:42
vs. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd.2 (Ganpati II), has reviewed the said
judgment and paragraph nos. 6 and 7 has held as under:
“6. 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. We accordingly allow the review petition and recall the
judgment dated August 23, 2022 [Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom
Pvt. Ltd., (2022) 447 ITR 108 (SC); (2023) 3 SCC 315; (2023) 1 SCC
(Cri) 798; 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1064.] . Civil Appeal No 5783 of 2022
[Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., (2022) 447 ITR 108 (SC);
(2023) 3 SCC 315; (2023) 1 SCC (Cri) 798; 2022 SCC OnLine SC
1064.] shall stand restored to file for fresh adjudication before a Bench
to be nominated by the Chief Justice of India on the administrative side.
7. Where any other proceedings have been disposed of by relying on the
judgment of this court in Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt.
Ltd. [(2022) 447 ITR 108 (SC); (2023) 3 SCC 315; (2023) 1 SCC (Cri)
798; 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1064.] , liberty is granted to the aggrieved
party to seek a review in view of the present judgment.”
9. It is, thus, seen that, the decision in Ganpati I has been recalled by
the Supreme Court in Ganpati II. The Supreme Court, in terms of paragraph
no. 7 of Ganptai II has granted liberty to the aggrieved parties to seek a
review where any other proceedings have been disposed of by relying on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ganpati I.
10. It appears that on the basis of the liberty granted by the Supreme
Court, the authority has approached the appellate tribunal seeking review of
the decision passed in the case of the petitioner. The petitioners’ proceedings
were dropped on the anvil of the principles laid down in a decision which
has already been recalled by the Supreme Court. The final adjudication as to
whether the provisions will have retrospective applicability or they will have
to apply only with prospective effect, is yet to be rendered by the Supreme
Court.
2
[2024] SCC OnLine SC 2981
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/04/2026 at 21:49:42
11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner points out that
subsequent to recall of Ganpati I, the similar controversy had arose in the
case of Deputy Director of Income Tax (BPU Unity) and Ors. v.
KokilabenChhaganbhai Patel3, before the division Bench of the Supreme
Court. It is, thus, pointed out that the Division Bench has expressed its
inability to agree with the liberty granted by the three judge Bench of the
Supreme Court in Ganpati II.
12. The Division Bench while relying on Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. K.L.
Rathi Steels Limited4 which was also the three judge Bench judgment found
that, the fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of
the Court is based has been reversed or modified by a subsequent decision of
a superior court, in any other case shall not be a ground for a review of such
judgment. It is, thus, submitted that in term of paragraph no. 5 following
K.L. Rathi Steels Limited, the liberty was declined to seek for a review in
that case.
13. Paragraph no. 5 of the KokilabenChhanganbhai Patel is extracted as
under:
“5. In R.P.(C) No. 359 of 2023 in C.A. No. 5783 of 2022 (supra), a three-
Judge Bench of this Court has failed to notice the judgment of this Court
in K.L. Rathi Steels Limited (supra) which is also of a co-equal strength
and prior in time. Therefore, following the judgment of this Court in K.L.
Rathi Steels Limited (supra), we decline to grant liberty to seek review in
the present case. Hence, the Review Petition is dismissed.”
14. It is also pointed out that following the same line of reasoning, the
division Bench of the Guwahati High Court in the case of Satyajit Saha vs.
3
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2622
4
[2024] 7 SCC 315
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/04/2026 at 21:49:42
UOI5 has set aside the decision of review. Paragraph nos. 24 to 26 of the
Guwahati High Court decision is extracted as under:
“24. This observation had been made by the two Judges Bench by taking
the support of the earlier judgment of another three Judges Bench of the
Supreme Court in K.L. Rathi Steels Limited (supra). Further, the two
Judges Bench in Kokilaben Chhaganbhai Patel (supra) had held that the
three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court, while disposing the review
petition in Union of India v. Ganpati Dealcom Private Limited, (2025)
474 ITR 354 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2981 had failed to notice the
judgment of the earlier judgment of the three Judges Bench in K.L. Rathi
Steels Limited (supra).
25. As can be seen from the above facts, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Kokilaben Chhaganbhai Patel (supra), has already taken a
decision with regard to which of the three Judges Benches decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court should be followed. It has already decided that
the earlier three Judges Bench in the case of K.L. Rathi Steels
Limited (supra) would have to be followed and the observation/direction
passed in paragraph-7 of the review petition in Union of India v. Ganpati
Dealcom Private Limited, (2025) 474 ITR 354 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC
2981 cannot be followed, as the same was apparently per incuriam.
When the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kokilaben Chhaganbhai
Patel (supra) has already decided as to which decision of the conflicting
3 Judges Bench is to be followed, we are bound to follow the above
interpretation given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Further, in the case
of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC
680 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held that when there are conflicting decisions of
equal Benches of the Supreme Court, the earlier decision would have to
be followed by the High Court.
26. In view of the reasons stated above, the following Questions of Law
are answered as follows:
1. Whether the Learned Tribunal acted illegally in allowing the Review
Petition on the basis of the liberty granted by the Supreme Court, without
examining whether such liberty could override the statutory limitations
under Section 114 read with Order 47 CPC, 1908 and
Section 40(2)(f) PBPT Act?
2. Whether the impugned order allowing the review application is in teeth of
the express bar set forth in Explanation in Rule 1 of Order 47?
Answer–
5
[2026] SCC OnLine Gau 1327
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/04/2026 at 21:49:42
In terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.L. Rathi Steels
Limited (supra) and Kokilaben Chhaganbhai Patel (supra), the learned
Appellate Tribunal could not have allowed the review petition only on the
basis of the liberty granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of
India v. Ganpati Dealcom Private Limited, (2025) 474 ITR 354 : 2024
SCC OnLine SC 2981, without taking a decision as to whether the
provisions of Order 47 of the CPC was attracted.”
15. The Court prima-facie finds that the review which has been
entertained by the appellate tribunal cannot be held to be wholly unjustified
or completely without jurisdiction, as the same is in consonance with the
binding and applicable directions in Ganpati II. It is not a case of
subsequent overruling. In the instant case Ganpati I, itself has been
recalled. Distinction has to be drawn from the cases, where, the decisions are
overruled and the one, where, decision itself has been recalled. Despite
directions in Ganpati II, if review is not entrained, the same would amount
to violation of the Supreme Court directions. The Ganpati II, has not been
recalled. These aspects have to be considered in greater detail.
16. On petitioners’ taking necessary steps, let notice be issued to all
respondents by all permissible modes, returnable on 01.09.2026.
17. However, till the matter is further heard, the Court needs to stay the
final decision to be rendered by the Tribunal. Let the proceedings continue,
however, no final order shall be passed till further orders.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
APRIL 29, 2026/SH
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/04/2026 at 21:49:42
