Writ Petition Not Maintainable If There Is Existence Of Alternative & Efficacious Remedy U/S 26 PMLA: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court reiterated that a Writ Petition is not maintainable if there is existence of an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).

The Court was deciding a batch of Writ Petitions challenging the Provisional Attachment Orders (PAOs) issued under Section 5 of PMLA.

A Single Bench of Justice Sachin Datta observed, “It is noted that in two of the matters, namely W.P.(C) 895/2025 and W.P.(C) 1260/2025, the respective Provisional Attachment Orders have already been confirmed by the learned Adjudicating Authority, and the petitioners (according to the respondent’s written submissions) have preferred statutory appeals against the said confirmation orders before the learned Appellate Tribunal. In the third petition, W.P.(C) 1791/2025, proceedings before the learned Adjudicating Authority have been concluded and the judgment has been reserved on 03.06.2025. … In view of the above, and considering the existence of an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 26 of the PMLA, this Court is of the opinion that the present petitions do not merit interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

The Bench also reiterated that where a statute provides a self-contained appellate mechanism, recourse to the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 is ordinarily not maintainable.

Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Vikas Pahwa represented the Petitioners, while CGSCs Ripudaman Bhardwaj, Nidhi Raman, Advocates (Special Counsel) Zoheb Hossain, and Manish Jain represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The case of the Petitioner company was that it had initially approached the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP), assailing the Order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, wherein no stay was granted in its favour. In the Writ Petition before the said High Court, the Petitioner had challenged an ex-parte order passed by the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana (DTCP). The Apex Court remitted the case back to the High Court with a direction for expeditious hearing and reaffirmed its earlier direction of maintaining status quo with respect to the possession of the plots.

The Petitioner’s case was that despite the subsistence of the Orders passed by the Supreme Court, the Respondent-Directorate of Enforcement (ED) registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) purportedly on the basis of certain predicate offences arising from eight FIRs filed by some of the home-buyers, primarily alleging delay in delivery of possession of their plots or apartments. It was submitted that at the time of registration of the said ECIR, five of the eight FIRs had already been closed or quashed by competent Courts of jurisdiction. The Petitioner initially challenged the ECIR before the Punjab and Haryana High Court but later the same was withdrawn and filed before the Delhi High Court. Subsequently, the ED issued PAOs, which were under challenge before the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in the above regard, noted, “The petitioners are not precluded from availing prescribed statutory/appellate remedy in the first instance. In the given factual conspectus, the same would not be inefficacious. … Section 26 of the PMLA specifically provides that any person aggrieved by an order of the Adjudicating Authority may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal.”

The Court added that the statutory scheme itself envisages that all questions relating to the validity, scope, and effect of an attachment order must first be adjudicated within the framework of the Act.

“All pleas of the petitioner, inter-alia, as regards jurisdiction / coram non judice would also necessarily be considered by the Appellate Tribunal. … It is further relevant to note that even the factual averments made in the present petitions have been disputed by the learned counsel for the directorate of enforcement”, it said.

The Court, therefore, concluded that it is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petitions as an alternative and efficacious statutory remedy is available to the Petitioners.

“All the grounds urged in these writ petitions may be raised before the Appellate Tribunal, which shall consider the same in accordance with law. … Since, appeals against the confirmation orders dated 29.01.2025 and 27.03.2025, passed by the learned Adjudicating Authority, 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”, it clarified.

Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Writ Petitions.

Cause Title- Ms Krrish Realtech Pvt Ltd v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:9653)

Appearance:

Petitioners: Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Vikas Pahwa, Advocates Bina Gupta, Sheena Taqvi, Akansha Saini, Shiv Vinayak Gupta, Sumedha Sarkar, and Nancy Shamim.

Respondents: CGSCs Ripudaman Bhardwaj, Nidhi Raman, Panel Counsel Anubhav Gupta, Vivek Gurnani, Advocates (Special Counsel) Zoheb Hossain, Manish Jain, Kushagra Kumar, Abhinav Bhardwaj, Amit Kumar Rana, Arnav Mittal, Akash Mishra, Azeez Mushtaque, and Pranjal Tripathi.

Click here to read/download the Judgment