Benami property: HC refuses to stay show cause notice against Misa Bharti's relative

The court also issued a notice to the Ministry of Finance and the Initiating Officer seeking their stand on the plea by November 1.

Published: 11th October 2018 09:07 PM  |   Last Updated: 11th October 2018 09:07 PM   |  A+A-

Misa Bharti (File |PTI)


NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Thursday declined to stay the show cause notice and the provisional attachment order issued against Misa Bharti's brother-in-law Nilesh Kumar under the Benami law.

Bharti is the daughter of RJD Chief Lalu Prasad Yadav.

Justice Vibhu Bakhru said however that the final order passed by the Initiating Officer of the Benami Prohibition Unit-1 (BPU) would not be given effect to until Kumar's petition against the show cause notice and provisional attachment order has been decided by the high court.

The court also issued a notice to the Ministry of Finance and the Initiating Officer seeking their stand on the plea by November 1.

Central government standing counsel Anurag Ahluwalia, appearing for the ministry, opposed the grant of any interim stay in the matter.

The BPU, in the show cause notice dated July 24, 2018, had said that Kumar was a benamidar of the properties at Sainik Farms here purchased by a company KHK Holdings.

The shares in the company are held by his brother Shailesh and sister-in-law Bharti, a Rajya Sabha MP, as Kumar had given Rs 2.05 crore to his brother to pay off the debts of the company.

The BPU had asked Kumar to show cause as to why the properties in question not be treated as benami property.

On July 25, BPU had issued a provisional attachment order in which also Kumar was termed as the benamidar and the funds as the benami property of Shailesh, said the plea, filed through advocate Amit Anand Tiwari.

Kumar has denied the allegations and contended that the amount was given by him to his brother as a gift in 2014 through banking channels.

He said the source of the Rs 2.05 crore was also explained by him and verified by the Income Tax department in Patna.

The amount was the repayment of the unsecured loan he had given to a private firm, the petition said.

Kumar contended that the BPU gave no reasons for arriving at its findings regarding the property and the funds.

He has sought to quash of the show cause notice, the provisional attachment order and the proceedings initiated against him under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act of 1988.

Stay up to date on all the latest Nation news with The New Indian Express App. Download now
(Get the news that matters from New Indian Express on WhatsApp. Click this link and hit 'Click to Subscribe'. Follow the instructions after that.)


Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp