Disposed

Union Bank of India v. Directorate of Enforcement

Delhi HC9 Apr 2026W.P.(C)/15808/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bank challenged attachment of properties by the Enforcement Directorate. ED's status report claimed one commercial property in Faridabad was attached and confirmed, but the Court found no contemporaneous record supporting this. It directed a joint meeting of the bank and ED to verify facts, leaving all questions open.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with direction for joint meeting of petitioner and ED to verify attachment status; all questions left open.

Union Bank of India Vs Directorate of Enforcement — Money Laundering | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~65

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 15808/2025 and CM APPL. 64756/2025, CM APPL. 79123/2025

¶4

UNION BANK OF INDIA

¶5

.....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Madhav Khurana, Sr. Adv with Mr. Talib Khan & Ms.Asees Kaur, Advocates.

¶7

versus

¶8

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

¶9

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Rahul Tyagi, Standing Counsel for ED with Mr Sangeet Sibou Mr Aniket Kumar Singh and Mr Priyansh Raj Singh Senger, Advocates.

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 09.04.2026

¶12

The Court vide Order dated 16.10.2025 noted that two of the properties out of three properties which are subject matter of the petition stood attached.

¶13

However, with respect to the third property, the Court wanted some clarity and directed the respondent to place on record affidavit indicating the correct factual position.

¶14

Mr. Rahul Tyagi, learned counsel for the Directorate of Enforcement submits that the status report has been presented and as per the same, the

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

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 13/04/2026 at 12:33:56

¶17

third property mentioned at Serial No. 1 (hereinafter ‘ the property in question ’) of the table in paragraph no. 8 therein, is found to have been attached under by PAO/01/2020 dated 08.01.2020 and has been confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority. The paragraph no. 8 of the affidavit is extracted as under:

¶18

“ 8. That the current status of the subject properties of the captioned petition is detailed below.

¶19

S. No.	Property Details	Attached by PA0/01/2020 *dated 08.01.2020*	Confirmed by Ld. AA
1 .	Commercial Land measuring 24 Kanai 7 Marla in Khewat/Khata No. 35/40, Rect No. 46, Kila No. 4(8-0), 7 (8-0), 8/1 ( 4-7), l 4min north ( 4- 0), situated at Village Baselwa, Teh & Distt Faridabad in the name of M/s SRS Retreat Services Ltd.	YES	YES
2 .	Commercial Land measuring 4 Kanal 1 Marla in Rect No. 134, Kila No. 9/3(2-10), 8(8- 0), 10/ 1(6-5 ), 9/2(2-10), 9/1 (3-0), Kila No. 5 situaled at village Prithla, Delhi- Agra Road, Distt. Palwal, Haryana in the name of M/s SRS Retreat Services Ltd .	NO	NA
3 . ”	Commercial Land measuring 11 Kanal 10 Marla in Khewat No. 84/99, Reel No. 46, Kila No. 4(8-0) situated at village Basewala, Faridabad Haryana in in the name of M/s SRS Retreat Services Ltd.	NO	NA

¶20

The Court, however, finds that there is no contemporaneous record which would justify that this very property was the subject matter of the PAO/01/2020 dated 08.01.2020 or is the subject matter of the original complaint filed before the Court of competent jurisdiction.

¶21

However, instead of dealing with the aforesaid issue any more, it would be appropriate to direct for the joint meeting of the petitioner’s representatives and the officials of the ED to examine the correct factual

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

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 13/04/2026 at 12:33:56

¶24

position and to take necessary action in accordance with law.

¶25

It be noted that if the property in question (as mentioned at serial no. 1 of table in paragraph no. 8 of the affidavit) is not found to have been attached, the necessary consequence shall follow. Else, the petitioner will have to undertake the necessary remedy in accordance with law.

¶26

Accordingly, leaving all questions open, at this stage, the petition, along with pending applications, stands disposed of.

¶27

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J

¶28

APRIL 9, 2026 aks

¶29

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 13/04/2026 at 12:33:56

Union Bank of India v. Directorate of Enforcement

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Directorate of Enforcement

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baba Saheb Ambedkar Technical Educational Society Vs Union of India

Techniko Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. Vs 1. National Highways Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited & Anr.

Bhagwan Dass Arora Vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr.

Yogesh Kumar Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Sh. Narendar Pal Sachdeva Vs DDA and Anr.

Varutha Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Manju Bala Vs Union of India & Ors.

Anjuman Himayatul Islam Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Baba Saheb Ambedkar Technical Educational Society Vs Union of India

Yogesh Kumar Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Delhi Judo Council (Regd.) Vs Union of India & Ors.

Master Tanishq Negi through Her Mother Vs Union of India & Ors.

Mr Dharambir Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Shri Mange Ram Vs the Office of Lt. Governor & Ors.