Disposed¶23

Sonia Bhandari v. Directorate of Enforcement

Delhi HC13 Apr 2026CRL.M.C./2783/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRL.M.C. 2783/2026; CRL.M.C. 2755/2026; Sonia Bhandari; Sanjay Bhandari; Directorate of Enforcement (ED); section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023; striking off common rejoinder; rejoinder filed 06.09.2025; confiscation of properties; original pleadings; Special Judge (PC Act)(CBI)-10 Rouse Avenue Courts Complex; MISC DJ ASJ/05/2020; impugned order dated 28.02.2026; petitions disposed-of; rights and contentions open; noticees Nos. 10 and 16.

What did the court decide?

None; the petitions were disposed-of in light of the observations made by the learned Special Judge, with all rights and contentions of the parties remaining open before the learned Special Judge. ¶23

Sonia Bhandari Vs Directorate of Enforcement — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the petitions were disposed-of in light of the observations made by the learned Special Judge, with all rights and contentions of the parties remaining open before the learned Special Judge.

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the common rejoinder filed by the ED, which mentions properties belonging to Sanjay Bhandari in addition to the properties belonging to Sonia Bhandari (beyond the original pleadings and the scope of the applicable law), should be struck off, and whether the High Court should set aside the Special Judge's order declining to strike it off.

¶22

Court's answer

This court is not inclined to entertain the present petitions, which are disposed-of in light of the observations made by the learned Special Judge as extracted above.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

Regardless of what may have been stated or filed by the ED in its common rejoinder, the issue of confiscation (or other disposition) of the properties would be considered based on the original pleadings and in light of the objections raised by the petitioners, in accordance with the applicable law and rules.

¶22

Key takeaways

All rights and contentions of the parties shall remain open to be placed before the learned Special Judge, in accordance with law.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J.), order dated 13.04.2026, CRL.M.C. 2783/2026 & CRL.M.C. 2755/2026 (connected): Sonia Bhandari and Sanjay Bhandari, spouses, being noticee No. 10 and respondent respectively in MISC DJ ASJ/05/2020 before the learned Special Judge (PC Act)(CBI)-10, Rouse Avenue Courts Complex, filed petitions under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking setting aside of the Special Judge's order dated 28.02.2026, which had dismissed their application to strike off the ED's common rejoinder (filed 06.09.2025) to the replies of noticees Nos. 10 and 16, on the ground that the rejoinder mentioned Sanjay Bhandari's properties beyond the original pleadings. Noting the Special Judge's observations that the rejoinder would be considered as per law in light of the applicants' objections and that confiscation would be decided on the original pleadings, the High Court declined to entertain the petitions and disposed of them, leaving all rights and contentions open before the Special Judge.

¶1

$~65 & 50

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 2783/2026 CRL.M.A. 11253/2026

¶4

SONIA BHANDARI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Avneesh A., Ms. Aekta Vats, Ms. Janvi Narang, Mr. Sagar Priyadarshi, Ms. Geetanjali Reddy, Mr. Ankit Sharma and Ms. Anurupita Kaur, Advocates.

¶5

versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT .....Respondent Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Spl. Counsel with Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Panel Counsel and Ms. Delphina Shinglai and Mr. Siddharth Bajaj, Advocates. + CRL.M.C. 2755/2026 & CRL.M.A. 11192/2026 SANJAY BHANDARI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Avneesh A., Ms. Aekta Vats, Ms. Janvi Narang, Mr. Sagar Priyadarshi, Ms. Geetanjali Reddy, Mr. Ankit Sharma and Ms. Anurupita Kaur, Advocates.

¶6

versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT .....Respondent Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Spl. Counsel with Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Panel Counsel and Ms. Delphina Shinglai and Mr. Siddharth Bajaj, Advocates.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI O R D E R % 13.04.2026

¶9

1 of 4

¶10

This is a digitally signed order.

¶11

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 29/04/2026 at 12:46:00

¶12

By way of the present petitions filed under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 the petitioners who are spouses and noticee No. 10 and respondent respectively in MISC DJ ASJ/05/2020 pending before the learned Special Judge (PC Act)(CBI)-10, Rouse Avenue Courts Complex, New Delhi (‘Special Judge’), seek setting aside of order dated 28.02.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge.

¶13

By way of impugned order dated 28.02.2026 the learned Special Judge has dismissed an application filed by the petitioners by which they had sought the striking-off of the common rejoinder filed by the Directorate of Enforcement (‘E.D’) to the replies filed by noticees Nos. 10 and 16.

¶14

After a brief hearing in the matter, this court considers it relevant to notice the following observations made by the learned Special Judge in the impugned order :

¶15

“16. The applicants i.e. respondent Sanjay Bhandari and noticee no. 10 Smt. Sonia Bhandari have raised certain objections with respect to the common rejoinder filed by the ED. The ED on the other hand has controverted the objections as described above. It cannot be disputed that ED has a right to submit its response to the replies filed by the noticee nos. 10 & 16. Further, if the ED has crossed its limit on certain aspects while filing the rejoinder, as alleged by the present applicants, the objections raised by the applicants can be considered at the time of considering the issue of confiscation of the properties as a whole. If any part of the rejoinder filed by ED is found to be beyond the scope of pleadings under the law, the same can very well be ignored/discarded while passing order on the confiscation of properties. A separate/detailed analysis about details of the properties sought to be confiscated is not required under the present applications as it may multiply the proceedings. In any case, a final view about the confiscation of

¶16

CRL.M.C. 2783/2026 & connected Page 2 of 4

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

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 29/04/2026 at 12:46:00

¶19

properties is to be taken in light of the original pleadings and as per applicable law/rules. There are no sufficient grounds to strike off the rejoinder in a summary manner at this stage.

¶20

“17. So in these circumstances, the request for striking off the common rejoinder filed by ED on 06.09.2025 is declined with an observation that the rejoinder filed by the ED shall be considered as per law in light of the objections raised by the applicants. Ordered accordingly.”

¶21

(emphasis supplied)

¶22

The essence of the petitioners’ grievances is that in the common rejoinder filed by the ED, they have mentioned the properties belonging to Sanjay Bhandari in addition to the properties belonging to Sonia Bhandari, which is beyond the original pleadings apart from being beyond the scope of the applicable law. However it is clear from the observations of the learned Special Judge as extracted above, that the learned Special Judge is conscious of the fact that regardless of what may have been stated by the ED or the documents that may have been filed by the ED in their common rejoinder, the issue of confiscation (or other disposition) of the properties would be considered based on the original pleadings and in light of the objections raised by petitioners, in accordance with the applicable law and rules.

¶23

In view of the above, this court is not inclined to entertain the present petitions, which are disposed-of in light of the observations made by the learned Special Judge as extracted above.

¶24

Pending applications, if any, disposed-of.

¶25

CRL.M.C. 2783/2026 & connected Page 3 of 4

¶26

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

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 29/04/2026 at 12:46:00

¶28

Needless to add, that all rights and contentions of the parties shall remain open to be placed before the learned Special Judge, in accordance with law.

¶29

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J

¶30

APRIL 13, 2026/ hb

¶31

CRL.M.C. 2783/2026 & connected Page 4 of 4

¶32

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 29/04/2026 at 12:46:00

Sonia Bhandari v. Directorate of Enforcement

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonia Bhandari v. Directorate of Enforcement

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Manu Maheshwari & Ors. Vs the State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Aman Kumar Jaiswal Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Harsh Mishra @ Mitthu Vs State of Gnctd Delhi

Shri. Vijay Kumar & Ors. Vs the State NCT O Delhi and Anr.

Mohd Shahnawaz and Anr. Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Naresh Kumar Vs State Gnctd and Ors.