$~29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1312/2025 MS NAINA JEWELLERS, THROUGH ITS PROPREITOR MR DEEPAK KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Shaurya Mittal and Ms. Dhanya Visweswaran, Advocates.

versus INDUSIND BANK LIMITED THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER KAROL BAGH BRANCH & ANR.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Akshay Gola, Advocate for R-1.

Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Panel Counsel with Mr.

Kanishk Maurya, Advocates for ED.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

O R D E R

% 18.12.2025 CM APPL. 74070/2025

1. This application is filed by the Petitioner under Section 151 CPC seeking preponement of hearing of the writ petition.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.

3. Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 1312/2025 & CM APPL. 6497/2025

4. With the consent of parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing.

5. This writ petition is filed on behalf of the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-

“a. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 to release the Petitioner’s Bank Account No. 200008880134 in lieu of fixed deposit of like amount held in the attached bank account; OR Alternatively, issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 to release the Petitioner’s Bank Account No. 200008880134 except for the amount of Rs.89,220/- confirmed to be attached by the Ld. AA, PMLA;

b. Pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the account of the Petitioner in Indus Bank Limited was frozen without any basis since no order to this effect was passed under Section 17 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The Enforcement Directorate (ED) initiated proceedings under PMLA and registered ECIR dated 11.05.2016 on the basis of scheduled offence registered vide FIR No. 365/2015 dated 24.12.2015 at Mumbai. Provisional Attachment Order No. 03/2023 was dated 24.04.2023 was issued by ED attaching an amount of Rs. 89,220/- in Petitioner’s account with Respondent No. 1. Investigation qua the Petitioner is complete and Adjudicating Authority under PMLA has confirmed the attachment to the extent of Rs.89,220/- vide order dated 10.10.2023 and appeal filed by the Petitioner against the said order is pending adjudication. During the pendency of the appeal, Petitioner sought clarification from Respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 14.11.2024 regarding the remaining funds in the bank account, to which the bank replied on 19.12.2024 stating that the account had been frozen pursuant to notice received from ED, however, no such notice was attached or ever forwarded to the Petitioner. In this backdrop, Petitioner urges that he should be permitted to operate the bank account and at the highest lien can be maintained on the amount attached pursuant to the Attachment Order under PMLA.

7. Mr. Gurnani, learned counsel appearing for ED supports the Petitioner to the extent that the Provisional Attachment Order was restricted to a sum of Rs.89,220/-, which was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority and there was no instruction to Respondent No. 1 to freeze the bank account. He also submits that investigation is ongoing and proceeds of crime allegedly involve a sum of Rs.19.21 lakhs and therefore, if the Court is inclined to pass an order de-freezing the account, it may be clarified that this order will not come in the way of ED in passing further order for attachment.

8. Counsel for Respondent No. 1 submits that account of the Petitioner was frozen under an impression that owing to the proceedings under PMLA, Petitioner must be restrained from operating the account, however, if the ED now takes a stand that attachment was limited to Rs.89,220/-, bank will have no objection in de-freezing the account, maintaining a