Disposed

Directorate of Enforcement v. M/S Trident Infosol Private Limited

Delhi HC1 Apr 2026MISC. APPEAL(PMLA)/79/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

ED appealed against the PMLA Appellate Tribunal's order de-attaching properties of the respondent after its discharge. The respondent offered a bank guarantee for the attached amounts; the High Court disposed of the appeal directing continued renewal of the guarantee, subject to the outcome of ED's revision petition.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed with direction that respondent renew the bank guarantee during pendency of ED's revision petition; guarantee to be dealt with subject to its outcome.

Directorate of Enforcement Vs M/S Trident Infosol Private… — Money Laundering | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~22

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 79/2025 & CM APPL. 68509/2025 - STAY

¶4

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT .....Appellant Through: Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Panel Counsel for ED.

¶5

versus

¶6

M/S TRIDENT INFOSOL PRIVATE LIMITED

¶7

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Pavan Narang, Sr. Adv., with Mr. Himanshu Sethi, Ms. Aishwarya Chhabra, Advs.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA O R D E R % 01.04.2026

¶9

MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 79/2025

¶10

This appeal has been filed under Section 42 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 challenging the order dated 29.05.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal under the SAFEMA at New Delhi in FPA-PMLA-3962/DLI/2021 titled “Trident Infosol Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi” disposing of the appeal filed by the respondent herein in the following terms:

¶11

“Considered the submissions from both the sides. In view of the discharge of the Appellant in the PMLA case, and as there be no stay from any higher judicial authority in the matter, the present appeal is hereby allowed and the impugned order is set aside. However, Respondents would be at liberty to seek revival of the case in case the order of the

¶12

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 06/04/2026 at 13:02:34

¶13

Trial Court is reversed by the Hon’ble High Court. Accordingly, the properties of the appellant herein attached vide the impugned order shall stand de-attached. In case possession has already been taken, the same shall be restored to the Appellant. The needful shall be done within six weeks and Appellant shall be informed suitably.

¶14

The appeal is accordingly, allowed.”

¶15

We are informed that as far as the discharge of the respondent in CT Case No. 01/2022 is concerned, the same has been challenged by the appellant in Criminal Revision Petition No. 210/2025 which is stated to listed tomorrow, that is, 02.04.2026.

¶16

In the meantime, as far as the present appeal is concerned, by an order dated 03.11.2025, this Court had directed as under:

¶17

“8. Mr. Pawan Narang, learned senior counsel for the respondent, on instructions, submits that without prejudice to the rights and contentions, they are ready to submit bank guarantee of the equivalent total amount for the property attached as per the following details: -

¶18

a) Fixed deposit of Rs. 2,08,00,000 opened on 20.02.2020 with Counterparty Account No. 113410003131 in the name of Mis Trident Infosol Pvt. Ltd. in ICICI Bank. b) An amount of Rs. 15,12,419 in bank account number 30204790991 of Mis Trident Infosol Pvt. Ltd. maintained with State Bank of India, Parishrama Bhavan (Hyderabad) APIDC Bldg., Basheer Bagh Road Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶19

c) An amount of Rs. 13,12,581 in bank account number 31732973727 of Mis Trident Infosol Pvt. Ltd. maintained with State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, Plot No. 3, 4 DDA Bldg, Vardhman Trade Centre, Nehru Place, New Delhi - 110019.

¶20

9. Keeping in mind the overall facts of the case and without prejudice to the rights and

¶21

¶22

contentions of either of the parties, the respondent is permitted to submit a bank guarantee, for an initial period of one year, for the entire amount of Rs. 2,36,25,000/- subject to the satisfaction of the Adjudicating Authority concerned. The said bank guarantee is to be renewed at least a month before its date of expiry.

¶23

10. Let said bank guarantee be submitted within a period of six weeks from today.

¶24

11. Once the above said bank guarantee is presented and accepted, the appellant herein would take requisite steps for refund of the amount of Rs. 15,12,419/- and Rs.13,12,581/as mentioned in paragraph 8 (b) and (c) above. The Adjudicating Authority shall also send a report about the submission of any such bank guarantee and about its acceptance.”

¶25

The respondent, however, complained that in spite of furnishing of the bank guarantee of the entire sum of Rs. 2,36,25,000/- (Rupees Two Crore Thirty Six Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand only), the attached FDRs have not been released by the bank. Therefore, vide order dated 20.03.2026, this Court directed as under:

¶26

“6. In view of the foregoing, the properties as mentioned in the paragraph 8 of the Order dated 03.11.2025 be released to the Respondent, subject to the terms and conditions of the said Order date 03.11.2025.”

¶27

Today, the learned counsel for the appellant has handed over the instructions dated 30.03.2026 addressed to the Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, Jasola Vihar Branch, stating that in view of the abovementioned orders passed by this Court, the FDR stands released.

¶28

In view of the above, the Bank is directed to comply with the above orders.

¶29

This is a digitally signed order.

¶30

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 06/04/2026 at 13:02:34

¶31

From a reading of the impugned order itself, it is evident that the same has been passed subject to the outcome of the revision petition filed by the appellant herein.

¶32

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the bank guarantee submitted by the respondent in terms of the order dated 03.11.2025, can continue subject to the outcome of the said revision petition and shall be periodically renewed during the pendency of the same.

¶33

We find the above offer to be fair. 10. Accordingly, we dispose of the present appeal by directing the respondent to continue to renew the said bank guarantee during the pendency of the above mentioned review petition, and further direct that the bank guarantee shall be dealt with subject to the outcome of the Revision Petition filed by the appellant and referred herein above. 11. The appeal, alongwith any pending application(s), is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid.

¶34

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

¶35

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J

¶36

APRIL 1, 2026/lks/na/ik

¶37

This is a digitally signed order.

¶38

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 06/04/2026 at 13:02:34

Directorate of Enforcement v. M/S Trident Infosol Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Directorate of Enforcement v. M/S Trident Infosol Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohit Kumar Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Deep Narayan Saraswat Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Another & Anr.

Amit Kumar Das Vs Nancy Yadav & Ors.

Anil Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Raju Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Pankaj Dhingra Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.