Ofb Tech Limited Vs Union of India — Money Laundering | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

Ofb Tech Limited Vs Union of India — Money Laundering | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with directions: (i) petitioner OFB Tech Limited and all its directors to cooperate with the respondent authority's PMLA investigation and appear before it as and when required; (ii) respondent authority directed to permit the agent/authorized signatory of the petitioner company to appear pursuant to the summons dated 18.06.2026; no order as to costs; miscellaneous applications, pending if any, stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of the Respondents in not permitting the petitioner company's Authorized Agent to represent it for the enquiry scheduled on 07.07.2026 pursuant to the summons dated 18.06.2026 is illegal, arbitrary and dehors the provisions of the PMLA, warranting a direction to allow the Authorized Agent to appear on behalf of the petitioner company.

Court's answer

The petitioner OFB Tech Limited and all of its directors shall cooperate with the investigation being done by the respondent authority under PMLA and shall appear before the respondent authority as and when required.

Ratio / Principle

The respondent authority is directed to permit the agent/authorized signatory of the petitioner company to appear pursuant to the summons dated 18.06.2026.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction), single Bench of Justice Ravi Cheemalapati, by order dated 06.07.2026 disposed of Writ Petition No. 17581/2026 filed by OFB Tech Limited under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the action of the Directorate of Enforcement respondents in not permitting the company's Authorized Agent/authorized signatory to represent it at the enquiry scheduled on 07.07.2026 pursuant to Summon No.PMLA/SUMMON/VKSZO/2026/1055 dated 18.06.2026 issued under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the officials insisting that the Directors alone appear. Taking into account the undertaking affidavit (USR No.69183 of 2026) filed by Director Sri Asish Mohapatra that the directors would fully cooperate with the investigation and appear in person as and when required, and the Standing Counsel for Enforcement's submission that the authority had no objection to accepting the affidavit and recording the agent's statement, the Court directed that the petitioner and all of its directors shall cooperate with the PMLA investigation and appear before the respondent authority as and when required, and further directed the respondent authority to permit the agent/authorized signatory of the petitioner company to appear pursuant to the summons dated 18.06.2026. No order as to costs; miscellaneous applications, pending if any, stood closed.

Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : 06.07.2026 Date of uploading :

APHC010334222026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3332]

MONDAY, THE 6^th DAY OF JULY 2026

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

WRIT PETITION NO: 17581/2026

Between:

OFB TECH LIMITED, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS OFB TECH PVT LIMITED) 6TH FLOOR, TOWER A, GLOBAL BUSINESS PARK, NEAR GURU DRONACHARYA METRO STATION, SECTOR 26, GURUGRAM - 122002. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY. RAVISH KUMAR

...PETITIONER

AND

UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, BANKING DIVISION 3RD FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, SAMSAD MARG, NEW DELHI - 110001.

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, 1-83-47, PLOT NO. HIG-244, SECTOR-4, MVP COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH - 530017.

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, 1-83-47, PLOT NO. HIG-244, SECTOR-4 MVP COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH - 530017

...RESPONDENT(S):

2

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in not permitting the Authorized Agent to represent the petitioner company for enquiry scheduled on 07.07.2026 as illegal, arbitrary and dehors the provision of PMLA and consequently direct the Respondents to allow the Authorized Agent to appear on 07.07.2026 on behalf of the Petitioner Company and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the Authorized Agent of the Petitioner Company to appear before Respondents on 07.07.2026 in response to the summons dated 18.06.2026 served on the Petitioner Company, and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.D S SIVADARSHAN

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.

2.GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING

The Court made the following:

3

ORDER:

Questioning the action of the respondents in not permitting the Authorized Agent to represent the petitioner company for enquiry scheduled on 07.07.2026, pursuant to the summons dated 18.06.2026, the present writ petition is filed.

Heard Sri K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Josyula Bhaskar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Enforcement.

Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition submitted that summons under Section 50 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as PMLA) dated 18.06.2026 has been issued to the petitioner company calling upon them to furnish information, produce documents and give evidence in connection with the investigation/proceedings pertaining to a different company. On receipt of the same, the company sent one of his agents/authorized signatory of the company to appear before the concerned official for recording statement. However, the respondent officials are insisting the Directors of the company alone to appear before them and not permitting the agent/authorized signatory.

4

Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that an additional affidavit vide USR No.69183 of 2026 has been filed by the petitioner stating that they would fully cooperate with the investigation being carried on by the respondent authority and if required any of the directors shall also be willing to appear in person before the respondent authority and they will cooperate with the investigation, accordingly, prayed to pass appropriate orders.

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submitted that in the summons it was mentioned that the Directors of the petitioner company has to appear before the officials not the agent, however, as the petitioner submitted an affidavit that as and when the directors are required, they would appear before the officials, the same may be taken into consideration and prayed to dispose of the writ petition, the officials will permit the agent to appear before them for recording their statement.

Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

Summons vide Summon No.PMLA/SUMMON/VKSZO/2026/1055 dated 18.06.2026 under Section 50 of PMLA has been issued to the petitioner company for investigation purpose. A perusal of the summons would indicate that in annexure it was mentioned that the Director/Authorized Signatory attending in compliance with the summons

5

on behalf of the company has to produce proof of identity, PAN card and Aadhar card. It is the contention of the petitioner that the authorities are not permitting the agent of the company who is an authorized signatory to appear before them and insisting for the Directors alone. However, an affidavit came to be filed by the petitioner company wherein an undertaking has been given stating that the Directors of the company would fully cooperate with the investigation and that they are willing to appear in person before the Investigating Authority as and when required. The said affidavit has been filed by one Sri Asish Mohapatra, S/o. Purna Chandra Mohapatra, the Director of the petitioner company. Further, the learned Standing counsel submitted that the authority has no objection to accept the affidavit filed by the Director of the petitioner company, and they also have no objection to record the statement of the agent appearing on behalf of the petitioner company as per summons dated 18.06.2026.

Taking their submissions into consideration, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by passing the following order:

“The petitioner-OFB Tech Limited and all of its directors has to cooperate with the investigation that is being done by the respondent authority under PMLA and they shall appear before the respondent authority as and when required.

6

Further, the respondent authority is also directed to permit the agent/authorized signatory of the petitioner company to appear pursuant to the summons dated 18.06.2026.”

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of . There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

Date: 06^th July, 2026 RKS

Whether the order is:

Speaking	Reasoned
Reportable	Non-reportable