Deputy Director, Directorate Of Enforcement vs Piramal Capital And Housing Finance Ltd.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

By way of this application, the appellant prays for condonation of delay of 57 days in filing this appeal.

Having considered the grounds set out in the application, we find sufficient reasons for condoning the delay. Accordingly, the delay is condoned. The application is disposed of.

This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PMLA’), challenging the order dated 16.04.2026 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA in appeal bearing no. FPA-PMLA-1760/DLI/2024, by way of which, the learned Appellate Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent herein and has set aside the order dated 31.07.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the Attachment.

The Adjudicating Authority, by its order dated 31.07.2024 passed in Original Complaint (OC) No. 2216/2024, had confirmed the Provisional Attachment Order No. 03/2024 dated 23.02.2024 passed by the appellant inter alia on the property of the respondent.

By the impugned order, the learned Appellate Tribunal has set aside the order passed by the learned Adjudicating Authority, only on the ground that FIR No. RC2172018A0004 dated 05.05.2018 had been quashed by this Court vide an order dated 14.10.2025 passed in CRL. MC 7294/2025 and thereafter, the Special Leave Petition filed against the same by the Central Bureau of Investigation had also been dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 09.03.2026.

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Appellate Tribunal failed to appreciate that apart from the above FIR, another FIR, that is, FIR No. RC 2172018A0003 dated 01.05.2018 had been registered under Section 420 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and was also the basis of the passing of the Provisional Attachment Order dated 23.02.2024. In the above FIR dated 01.05.2018, a charge sheet already stands filed and a Prosecution Complaint bearing Case No. ECIR/03/HIU/2018 under Section 45 of the PMLA also stands filed by the appellant herein. He submits that the impugned order has been passed without considering the above FIR and the Complaint.

He further submits that the impugned order was also challenged by the appellant in MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 116/2026 titled as Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement v. Shri Upendra Rai and MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 118/2026 titled as Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement v. Shri Narendra Rai, and by a consent order dated 25.08.2026, the impugned order has been set aside in those appeals qua the respondents therein and the matter was remanded back to the learned Appellate Tribunal to decide the appeals afresh.

The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that no fault can be found in the impugned order in as much as the FIR for the predicate offence stands quashed by this Court by way of the above referred order passed in CRL. MC 7294/2025.

We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

We find that the learned Appellate Tribunal has based its impugned order only on the fact of quashing of FIR No. RC2172018A0004, without considering the other FIR dated 01.05.2018, which was also the subject matter of the provisional attachment order confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority.

The effect of quashing of the FIR No. RC2172018A0004 on the Provisional Attachment Order, should also have been independently considered by the learned Appellate Tribunal, as has been held by the Supreme Court in Directorate of Enforcement v. Bhupesh Arora (Order dated 29.09.2026 in SLP (Crl.) No. 13532/2026), wherein the Supreme Court had observed that when an FIR of a predicate offence has been quashed on a compromise, the same does not obliterate the existence of the proceeds of crime.

Keeping in view the above, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.04.2026 is set aside. The appeal, that is, FPA-PMLA-1760/DLI/2024, is restored and remanded back to the learned Appellate Tribunal for considering the same afresh, remaining uninfluenced by any observations made in the impugned order. All contentions of the parties shall remain open to be adjudicated afresh before the learned Appellate Tribunal.

In our order dated 25.08.2026, referred hereinabove, we had requested the learned Appellate Tribunal to try and dispose of the appeals therein within a period of two months from the date of first listing. We reiterate the same request in the present appeal as well.

We are informed that the other connected appeals are listed before the learned Appellate Tribunal on 18.11.2026. In view of the same, let the appeal bearing no. FPA-PMLA-1760/DLI/2024 be also listed before the learned Appellate Tribunal on the same date, that is, 18.11.2026.

The present appeal is disposed of in the above terms.