In a writ petition, the Supreme Court analyzed the petition filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the summons issued by the Directorate of Enforcement to join the ongoing investigation under the PMLA. The Court dismissed the petition.
The petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to join the investigation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~32
AMIT KOHLI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Devyani Gupta, Ms. Tanvi Anand, Mr. Chanki Kohli, Advocates
versus
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ravi Prakash, CGSC with Mr. Ali Khan, Advocate for ED
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
O R D E R
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/07/2025 at 01:47:32
16.05.2008, Order No. VIII/12/DZU/2005-1633 dated 22.05.2008 and Order No.VIII/12/DZU/2008-1757dated 18.06.2008 under Section 68F(1) of the NDPS Act, 1985. The order passed under section 68F(1) of the NDPS Act, 1985 was confirmed by the Competent Authority under Section 68F(2) of the NDPS Act, 1985 vide order no. CA/DL/NDPS/18/08/863 dated 12.06.2008, order no. CA/DL/NDPS/19/08/885 dated 16.06.2008, and. Order no. CA/DL/NDPS/26/08/1100 dated 11.07.2008. The Narcotic Control Bureau (NCB) filed complaint bearing No. VIII/12/DLZO/2008 under sections 22/23/24/27A and 29 of the NDPS Act, against the petitioner and the other accused persons on 01.11.2008.
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/07/2025 at 01:47:32
cause notice with the direction to appear before the Chairman, Adjudicating Authority, PMLA on 15.11.2019.
25. Thus, the investigation in the present ECIR is still continuing and the petitioner has merely been summoned to appear and submit certain documents. Even as per the own case of petitioner, he has joined investigation in the present ECIR upon being summoned by the Directorate of Enforcement on six occasions in past, between March till August 2023. Thus, no tenable grounds have been shown now as to why the impugned summons deserve to be quashed.
26. Even otherwise, as held in several judicial precedents discussed above, this Court cannot throttle the investigative process at the stage of issuance of summons to the petitioner.
DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J
MAY 17, 2024/j /ak/abk
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/07/2025 at 01:47:32
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the summons issued under Section 50 of the PMLA to join investigation is maintainable at this stage?
Whether the High Court can throttle the investigative process merely on the issuance of a summons?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Amit Katyal V Directorate of EnforcementReferred¶20
Amit Katyal V Directorate of Enforcement 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7119 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Amit Kohli
Directorate of Enforcement
Sudhir Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
