Delhi High Court Dismisses Challenge to Property Attachments in ₹503-Crore PMLA Case, Writ Not Maintainable When Statutory Remedy Exists under PMLA
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi, Single Bench of Justice Sachin Datta has observed that a provisional attachment order (PAO) issued under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 cannot be challenged in writ jurisdiction when an alternative statutory remedy is available under the Act. The Court dismissed petitions filed by a real estate company and its promoter contesting the Enforcement Directorate’s attachment of their properties, which were alleged to be linked to diverted funds collected from homebuyers. Emphasizing that the PMLA provides a complete appellate mechanism, the Court directed the petitioners to pursue their appeals before the Appellate Tribunal and requested the Tribunal to decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within six months, without expressing any opinion on the merits.
The petitions were filed by M/s Krrish Realtech Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Amit Katyal challenging three Provisional Attachment Orders issued under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The attachments—dated 06.08.2024, 17.10.2024, and 15.01.2025—concerned properties and assets linked to alleged diversion of funds collected from home-buyers of projects in Gurugram. The petitioners asserted that multiple home-buyers had filed eight FIRs alleging delays in delivery of plots, and at the time of issuance of the attachments, five FIRs had been quashed or closed. They also stated that proceedings before the Directorate of Town and Country Planning, Haryana, and subsequent orders of the Supreme Court directing “status quo, as on today, with regard to the possession of the plots” continued to operate.
The petitioners contended that the Enforcement Directorate registered ECIR GNZO/04/2023 on the basis of those FIRs, despite their closure. They further submitted that Section 5(1) was violated because material regarding the status of the scheduled offences had been concealed, that no valid reasons to believe existed, and that the attachments conflicted with existing Supreme Court orders. They also argued that the Adjudicating Authority’s confirmation orders were void as they were passed by a single financial member.
The Enforcement Directorate responded that the FIRs revealed misappropriation and diversion of ₹503.09 crore through shell companies, forming proceeds of crime. It was stated that two attachments had already been confirmed on 29.01.2025 and 27.03.2025, and the petitioners had filed statutory appeals. It was further stated that FIRs 30/2019 and 439/2024 continued to subsist. The Directorate submitted that issues raised were factual and had been considered by the Adjudicating Authority, and that the writ petitions were not maintainable.
The Court recorded that the petitions challenged Provisional Attachment Orders but “in two of the matters… the respective Provisional Attachment Orders have already been confirmed by the learned Adjudicating Authority, and the petitioners… have preferred statutory appeals.” It observed that in the third matter, “proceedings before the learned Adjudicating Authority have been concluded and the judgment has been reserved.” The Court stated that the statutory scheme of the PMLA contains a complete appellate mechanism and that “all questions relating to the validity, scope, and effect of an attachment order must first be adjudicated within the framework of the Act.”
The Court stated that “where a statute provides a self-contained appellate mechanism, recourse to the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 is ordinarily not maintainable.” It referred to the decision in Gold Croft Properties and reproduced the discussion that “when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.”
Regarding the petitioners’ reliance on the Supreme Court’s status-quo orders concerning possession of plots, the Court stated that “such an argument can also be appropriately raised before the Appellate Tribunal.” It further observed that a coordinate bench, dealing with a similar plea in Rohit Mahendru, noted multiple proceedings and that the petitioners in that case were advised to approach the PMLA appellate forum.
On the factual disputes raised, the Court noted that the Enforcement Directorate had “categorically denied the assertions made by the petitioners” and quoted that “a writ court cannot adjudicate upon contested questions of fact, which the petitioner is attempting to raise through the present petition.”
The Court stated that the petitioners were not precluded from availing the appellate remedy, and that “in the given factual conspectus, the same would not be inefficacious.” It reiterated that Section 26 provides for an appeal against an order of the Adjudicating Authority and held that this mechanism must be followed.
The Court concluded that it was “not inclined to entertain the present petitions, as an alternative and efficacious statutory remedy is available.” It repeated that all grounds raised could be addressed before the Appellate Tribunal.
The Court directed that “the present petitions are disposed of. Since, appeals against the confirmation orders dated 29.01.2025 and 27.03.2025… have already been filed, the Appellate Tribunal is requested to consider and decide the said appeals as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from today.”
“In the event the petitioner is aggrieved by the said judgment, they shall be at liberty to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law.”
All pending applications were also disposed of.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners:
Mr. Kapil Sibal, Senior Advocate; Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Senior Advocate; Ms. Bina Gupta; Ms. Sheena Taqvi; Ms. Akansha Saini; Mr. Shiv Vinayak Gupta; Ms. Sumedha Sarkar; Ms. Nancy Shamim.
For the Respondents:
Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, CGSC; Mr. Kushagra Kumar; Mr. Abhinav Bhardwaj; Mr. Amit Kumar Rana; Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC; Mr. Arnav Mittal; Mr. Akash Mishra; Mr. Anubhav Gupta, Panel Counsel (Civil-GNCTD); Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel (ED); Mr. Manish Jain, Special Counsel (ED); Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Panel Counsel (ED); Mr. Azeez Mushtaque; Mr. Pranjal Tripathi.
Case Title: M/s Krrish Realtech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:9653
Case Number: W.P.(C) 895/2025 & connected matters
Bench: Justice Sachin Datta
