RAMA RANI HOTA vs PRASANNA KUMAR HOTA AND ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 06.04.2026 Pronounced on: 16.04.2026 + MISC. APPEAL (PMLA) 27/2026 & CM APPL. 21571/2026 SMT. RAMA RANI HOTA .....Appellant Through: Mr.Gaurav Gupta, Ms.Nidhi Singh, Mr.Abhishek Samal, Ms.Nisha Nandani Singh, Ms.Isha Rajgharia and Mr.Abhishek Pareek, Advs. versus SH. PRASANNA KUMAR HOTA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA JUDGMENT NAVIN CHAWLA, J. 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 49 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 („PBPT Act‟), challenging the order dated 12.09.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA at New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in MP-PBPT-2784/CHD/2025 in FPA-PBPT- 1190/CHD/2020 titled Sh. Prasanna Kumar Hota v. The Initiating Officer, BPU, Chandigarh, whereby the application for intervention filed by the appellant herein, being MP-PBPT-2784/CHD/2025, was Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed MISC. APPEAL (PMLA) 27/2026 Page 1 of 7 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Date:16.04.2026 18:43:06 dismissed by the learned Tribunal with the following observations: “An application has been filed of the impleadment in the review application though similar application was dealt with while the appeal was heard and decided covering it by the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs Ganapati Dealcom reported in (2023) 3 SCC 315. The judgement, in the case of Ganapati Dealcom (supra) has been recalled by the Apex Court vide its order dated 18.10.24 with liberty to parties to seek review of the order if it was passed relying the judgement in the case of Ganapati Dealcom (supra). We have allowed similar review application and application for condonation o