Petitioners Barred from Raising Constitutional Validity Challenge Under Order II Rule 2, Fined for Abuse of Process
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court dismissed a series of writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015. The petitioners, Rajendra Prasad Nargis, Sudha Nargis, and Deepak Nargis, sought to contest the retrospectivity of the Proviso to Section 3(1) and Clause (c) of Section 72 of the Act. The court, however, found the challenge barred under the principles of Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The bench, comprising Justices Dinesh Mehta and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, held that all grounds available to the petitioners should have been raised during earlier proceedings. The petitioners had previously initiated multiple writ petitions related to the same matter, none of which questioned the retrospective application of the Act’s provisions. The court noted that the grounds presented in the latest petitions were available to the petitioners at the outset but were not raised, thereby constituting an abuse of the legal process.
The petitioners argued that the retrospective application of the Act was arbitrary and violated constitutional rights under Articles 14, 300A, and 265. They contended that properties acquired before the Act's enactment should not be subjected to its provisions. However, the court dismissed these claims, emphasizing that the failure to challenge the retrospectivity in earlier petitions barred them from doing so now.
Additionally, the court imposed costs of Rs. 20,000/- on each petitioner, to be deposited with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority within two weeks. The ruling underscores the court's stance on discouraging repetitive litigation and the importance of presenting all available claims in initial proceedings.
The Delhi High Court's decision reaffirms the procedural requirement under Order II Rule 2, stressing that litigants must raise all possible grounds at the earliest opportunity. The petitioners retain the right to pursue other legal avenues and present their case before relevant authorities.
Bottom line:-
Challenge to the constitutional validity of Proviso to Section 3(1) and Clause (c) of Section 72 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 dismissed as barred under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for failure to raise the ground in earlier proceedings.
Statutory provision(s): Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 Sections 3(1), 72, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order II Rule 2
Rajendra Prasad Nargis v. Union of India, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2960850
