A Mumbai special court has ordered the restoration of the 2021 benami property case involving Maharashtra minister Chhagan Bhujbal and some of his family members, stating that the Bombay High Court had previously quashed the case on technical grounds, not based on the merits of the case, reported the PTI.

The matter will now proceed before the Special MP/MLA Court in Mumbai, with the next hearing scheduled for October 6, 2025.

According to the PTI, the case, initiated in 2021 by the Income Tax Department, involved Chhagan Bhujbal, his relatives, and companies allegedly linked to them – Armstrong Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Parvesh Constructions Pvt Ltd, and Devisha Constructions Pvt Ltd. The department claimed the accused were the beneficial owners of benami assets and had engaged in benami transactions during the financial years 2008-09 and 2010-11.

Benami properties are assets that are held in the name of another person, while the actual beneficiary remains hidden.

In November 2021, the special court had issued summonses to Chhagan Bhujbal, his son Pankaj Bhujbal, and nephew Sameer Bhujbal. However, they challenged the case in the Bombay High Court, which in December 2024 quashed the complaint based on a Supreme Court precedent, not on the factual basis or substance of the allegations, as per the PTI.

However, Special Judge Satyanarayan Navander, hearing the matter in the special MP/MLA court, stated that the High Court`s decision was purely technical, and it had not address the facts or merits of the complaint.

Special judge, in an order passed on Tuesday, noted that the High Court, while quashing the case, “did not touch either the facts of the case or the merits of the matter”, reported the PTI.

“(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 news agency reported.

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

As the Supreme Court has since allowed the review and set aside the earlier precedent, the court noted it had no choice but to restore the proceedings.

(with PTI inputs)

Source