Allowed

Amazing Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr.

Delhi HC19 Feb 2025W.P.(C)/2181/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court allowed exemption and stay applications in money laundering cases. The Court directed the Adjudicating Authority to provide an opportunity of hearing and a period to file a reply to the petitioners, drawing parity with a recent order in W.P.(C) 1241/2025.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to Adjudicating Authority: (1) Provide opportunity of hearing; (2) Permit filing of reply within 3 days; (3) Schedule hearing in compliance with PMLA time limits.

Amazing Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Anr. — Money Laundering | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~72&73

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 2179/2025 (72) AMD ESTATES PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Avi Singh, Sr. Adv., Mr. Shambhu K. Thakur, Mr. Shikhar Garg and Mr. Rishabh Basra, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC, Mr. Zubin Singh and Mr. Arnav Mittal, Advs. for R-1/UOI. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Spl. Counsel, Mr. Manish Jain, Spl Counsel, Mr. Vivek Gurnani, SC, Mr. Kartik Sabharwal, Mr. Pranjal Tripathi and Mr. Kanishk Maurya, Advs. for ED.

¶4

W.P.(C) 2181/2025 (73) AMAZING PROPBUILD PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Avi Singh, Sr. Adv., Mr. Shambhu K. Thakur, Mr. Shikhar Garg and Mr. Rishabh Basra, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC, Mr. Zubin Singh and Mr. Arnav Mittal, Advs. for R-1/UOI. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Spl. Counsel, Mr. Manish Jain, Spl Counsel, Mr. Vivek Gurnani, SC, Mr. Kartik Sabharwal, Mr. Pranjal Tripathi and Mr. Kanishk Maurya, Advs. for ED.

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA % O R D E R

¶7

19.02.2025

¶8

CM APPL.10288/2025 (Exemption) in W.P.(C) 2179/2025 CM APPL.10290/2025 (Exemption) in W.P.(C) 2181/2025

¶9

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 01/07/2025 at 18:07:27

¶10

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶11

Applications stand disposed of.

¶12

W.P.(C) 2179/2025 and CM APPL.10287/2025 (Stay) W.P.(C) 2181/2025 and CM APPL.10289/2025 (Stay)

¶13

The present petition has been filed assailing an order dated 06.02.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, Prevention of Money Laundering (hereinafter ‘ the Adjudicating Authority ’) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

¶14

It is contended that the petitioners were unable to furnish their reply to original complaint no. 2432/2024 since the Relied Upon Documents (RUD) were not supplied to the petitioners. Consequently, it is submitted that the hearing scheduled before the Adjudicating Authority on 06.02.2025 was not an effective hearing.

¶15

Reliance is also placed on the order dated 31.01.2025 passed in W.P(C) 1241/2025 wherein, it has been, inter alia , directed as under:-

¶16

19. After some hearing, with the consent of respective counsel, the present petition is disposed of with the direction that the adjudicating authority shall provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner; the petitioner shall be at liberty to urge all grounds in support of its contentions, and make submissions as regards legality/ validity of the said impugned PAO and the impugned Show Cause Notice.

¶17

20. It is further agreed that all such documents to which the petitioner may be entitled under law, shall be duly provided to the petitioner within a period of ten days from today. It is directed accordingly.

¶18

21. The adjudicating authority shall afford adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and shall pass an order within the period contemplated under Section 5 r/w Section 8 of the PMLA.

¶19

¶20

It is submitted that the petitioners’ counsel, who also represents another respondent in the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority was served with the complete RUD pursuant to the aforesaid order of this Court.

¶21

In the circumstances, the petitioners seek that they should be permitted to file a reply in the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority and also be afforded an opportunity of hearing.

¶22

The order dated 06.02.2025 rightly notes that the Show Cause Notice pursuant to the original complaint was served on the petitioner in the immediate aftermath on 14.10.2024. It is also rightly noticed that there is no rationale/ justification for the petitioners waiting till the eleventh hour before taking appropriate steps/ availing remedies on the basis that the RUD were not given to the petitioners in a timely manner. However, considering that the petitioner in W.P(C) 1241/2025 has been permitted to submit its reply before the Adjudicating Authority within a period of three days from today and a hearing has also been directed to be scheduled in terms of an order passed today itself, in the interest of justice, it is directed that a similar opportunity be afforded to the petitioners herein as well.

¶23

It is made clear that the aforesaid directions have been passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. The Adjudicating Authority shall be entitled to suitably limit/confine the hearing/s to ensure that the adjudication is completed within the statutorily prescribed period.

¶24

With the aforesaid directions, the present petition is disposed of.

¶25

SACHIN DATTA, J

¶26

FEBRUARY 19, 2025/uk

¶27

Amazing Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amazing Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Anr. Vs Dr. Prabhu Nath Singh and Anr.

Dharambir Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Panaesha Capital Pvt. Ltd. through Sandeep Phogat & Anr. Vs Danish Azim Qureshi

Sh. Amit Bansal & Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Ravindra Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Nitin Nagpal Vs Union of India & Anr.

Rohit Vs Border Security Force

Vee Ess Electricals and Aircon through Its Proprietor Anuj Kumar Sharma Vs Union of India & Ors.

Debby Osasu Williams & Ors. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Sanjay Jain Vs Enforcement Directorate

M/S Sharnam Jewels LLP Vs Union of India through Its Secretary Revenue & Anr.

Amd Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ravindra Institute of Indian Civil Services (Opc) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi

M/S Swastik Oil Products Manufacturing Navsari Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.