Quashed

Satyam Caterers Pvt. Limited v. Directorate of Enforcement

Delhi HC14 May 2026MISC. APPEAL(PMLA)/14/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the Appellate Tribunal's order which had refused to direct the release of excess proceeds of crime quantified by the Adjudicating Authority, merely because the Directorate of Enforcement had filed a separate appeal. The Court held that the Tribunal failed to consider the prima facie merits of the respondent's appeal in the appellant's application. The matter was remanded w

What did the court decide?

Release of Rs. 1,54,15,300/- subject to bank guarantee; remaining amount kept in fixed deposit.

Satyam Caterers Pvt. Limited Vs Directorate of Enforcement — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

$~19

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of decision: 14.05.2026

¶4

+ MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 14/2026 SATYAM CATERERS PVT LIMITED .....Appellant Through: Mr.Gautam Khazanchi & Mr.Vaibhav Dubey, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

¶7

.....Respondent Through: Mr.Rahul Tyagi, SC for ED with Ms.Priya Rai, Mr.Jatin, ASPP & Mr.Amit Rohil, Advs.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

¶10

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

¶11

This appeal has been filed under Section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”), challenging the order dated 02.12.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA in MP-PMLA-1715/DLI/2025 (Direction) in FPA-PMLA722/DLI/2025.

¶12

The said appeal in turn has been filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 11.03.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority in OC No. 993/2018, titled ED v. M/s RK Associates & Hoteliers Pvt. Ltd. , inter alia , quantifying the proceeds of crime qua the appellant as Rs.3,08,30,600/-. Prior thereto, an amount of

¶13

Signature Not Verified

¶14

Page 1 of 4

¶15

Digitally Signed MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 14/2026 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Da te:1 8.05.2026 11:27:59

¶16

Rs.4,62,45,900/- had been recovered from the bank account of the appellant as proceeds of crime pursuant to the order dated 03.12.2018 passed by the learned Adjudicating Authority in the above OC.

¶17

The appellant, while challenging the order dated 11.03.2025 before the learned Appellate Tribunal, also prayed, by way of the above-mentioned application, that the excess amount recovered from the appellant, that is, of Rs.1,54,15,300/-, be directed to be released by the respondent to the appellant. The impugned order has been passed on the said application.

¶18

The learned Tribunal has disallowed the above prayer of the appellant, only on the ground that the respondent has also challenged the order dated 11.03.2025 passed by the learned Adjudicating Authority by way of a separate appeal before the learned Tribunal, and that granting relief to the appellant would render the appeal filed by the respondent infructuous. 5. We cannot accept the above reasoning of the learned Tribunal. The merits of the appeal filed by the respondent, even prima facie , have not been considered in the impugned order. In fact, the same could not be adjudicated in the appeal filed by the appellant herein, and has not been adjudicated at all in the impugned order, which has been passed on an application and on an appeal filed by the appellant. 6. The appellant had partly succeeded before the Adjudicating Authority in the form of a reduction of the alleged proceeds of crime. The appellant was, therefore, entitled to the consequential relief of release of the amount, subject to any order to the contrary being passed in the appeal/application filed by the respondent. Such is not

¶19

Signature Not Verified

¶20

Page 2 of 4

¶21

Digitally Signed MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 14/2026 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Da te:1 8.05.2026 11:27:59

¶22

the case here.

¶23

Whether the appeal filed by the respondent challenging the reduction in the quantification of proceeds of crime by the Adjudicating Authority was prima facie meritorious or not has to be determined in the appeal filed by the respondent qua the reduced amount.

¶24

In the impugned order, we do not find any consideration of the prima facie merits of the respondent’s appeal. In fact, that appeal or any application therein for the said relief, was not even before the learned Tribunal when the impugned order was passed. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.

¶25

In fairness, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is willing to secure the interest of the respondent for the differential amount of Rs.1,54,15,300/- by way of a bank guarantee till such time as the application filed by the respondent in its appeal is not considered by the learned Tribunal. 10. Accordingly, we direct the respondent to release the amount of Rs.1,54,15,300/- to the appellant, subject to the appellant furnishing a bank guarantee of an equivalent amount to the respondent, which shall be subject to the outcome of the application/appeal filed by the respondent and pending adjudication before the learned Tribunal.

¶26

As far as the remaining amount of Rs.3,08,30,600/-, which has been adjudicated by the Adjudicating Authority as proceeds of crime, is concerned, the same shall be kept in a fixed deposit and shall remain subject to the outcome of the appeals filed by the parties herein.

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Page 3 of 4

¶29

Digitally Signed MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 14/2026 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Da te:1 8.05.2026 11:27:59

¶30

We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the appeal filed by either of the parties or the application for interim stay filed therein.

¶31

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

¶32

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

¶33

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J

¶34

MAY 14, 2026/ rv/as

¶35

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 14/2026 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Da te:1 8.05.2026 11:27:59

¶36

Page 4 of 4

Satyam Caterers Pvt. Limited v. Directorate of Enforcement

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyam Caterers Pvt. Limited 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Heera Lal Vs the State (Nct of Delhi)

Surender Vs the State

Arvind Mishra Vs the Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Lucknow

Suresh Vs State of Delhi

Nasir Ahmad Vs State

Jagjit Singh Vs State of Delhi