##PAGE1##

$~33

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.REV.P. 539/2025 & CRL.M.As. 38180-38183/2025

RICHA BHARADWAJ & ANR. .....Petitioners

Through: Ms. Rebacca John, Mr. Anurag

Ahluwalia and Mr. Vaibhav Gaggar,

Senior Advocates with Mr. Akash

Arora, Mr. Swanit Chaudhry, Ms.

Anushka Barua, Mr. Akash Kumar

and Mr. Dhruv Dewan, Mr. Vansh,

Advocates.

versus

ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE & ANR. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Panel Counsel

with Mr. Kanishk Maurya and Mr.

Vivek Gaurav, Advocates for R-1.

Mr. N. Hariharan and Mr. Gautam

Narayan, Senior Advocates with Mr.

Harshit Sethia, Mr. Jai Sikand and

Ms. Mansi, Advocates for R-2.

Mr. Aman Lekhi, Senior Advocate

with his briefing counsel.

(Appearance not given.)

Mr. Atmaram N.S. Nadkarni, Senior

Advocate with Ms. Kanika Singhal

and Mr. Shivam Singh Rana,

Advocates for IRP of three C. Shelter.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 23.12.2025

1. This revision petition is directed against order dated 27^th November,

2025, passed by the Court of ASJ-02, South-East District, Saket Courts,

CRL.REV.P. 539/2025 Page 1 of 6

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 19/01/2026 at 21:50:57

New Delhi (Special Court dealing with proceedings under the Prevention of

Money Laundering Act, 2002, “PMLA”), in Misc. No. 1337/2025 [CT No. 09/2025],

an application moved by Respondent No. 2 under Section 8(8) PMLA.

2. By the impugned order, the aforenoted application has been allowed

and the property attached by Provisional Attachment Order No. 12/2025

dated 28^th March, 2025 and 29^th March, 2025 (in ECIR No. ECIR/GNZO-

11/2024) has been directed to be restored “as per Rules”, with a further

direction that the IRP shall abide by the undertaking submitted before the

Special Court.

3. The Petitioners confine the present challenge to Table 27, Asset at

Serial No. 6 in the Provisional Attachment Order. For ease of reference, the

relevant entry reads as follows:

“Table 27: Details of properties liable to be attached under section 5 read with section

2(1)(u)of PMLA, 2002

S. Name of the Entity Address Value of the Property

No. in INR (Circle

Rate/Book

Value/Market Value)

1. Lavender Infra Plot NO. A-3a, District 273,99,60,000

Projects Centre, Phase II, Nehru

Private Limited Place

2. Land in the name of Jhanjheri, Tehsil 1,80,00,000

Nirmal Singh Kharar, Distt. SAS

Nagar, Punjab

3. Land in the name of Mechlikala, Tehsil 4,70,00,000

Nirmal Singh Kharar, Distt. SAS

Nagar, Punjab

4. Lotus Valley Global Piece of land at Gajjar, 3,45,11,500

LLP Garhshankar, Punjab

admeasuring 13. 75

acres

5. White Lotus Projects Piece of land at 3,04,72,650/-

CRL.REV.P. 539/2025 Page 2 of 6

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 19/01/2026 at 21:50:57

LLP Mehdood,

Garhshankar,

Punjab admeasuring

14

acres

6. Solitaire Security 17% equity shares 108,04,00,000

Services Private

Limited is Rs. 108.04

(Rs. 635.54 * 17%

equity shares).

Grand Total 391,98,71,500

4. Ms. Rebecca John, senior counsel appearing for the Petitioners,

assails the impugned order on two principal grounds. First, it is urged that an

application seeking restoration “during trial” under the second proviso to

Section 8(8) PMLA cannot be considered before the stage contemplated by

the Prevention of Money Laundering (Restoration of Confiscated Property)

Rules, 2016, particularly Rule 3A(1), which predicates such consideration

“after framing of the charge” under section 4 of PMLA. Second, and more

fundamentally, it is submitted that the procedure mandated by Rule 3A has

not been followed. In particular, Rule 3A(4) bars any restoration order

“without giving an opportunity of being heard to the owner of the property”.

5. It is pointed out that the impugned order does not record any

submissions on be