$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 552/2026 and CM APPL. 2733/2026 POONAM GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Yash Varma, Mr. Raghav Bakshi, and Ms Vani Gupta, Advocates.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Standing Counsel, ED with Mr. Kanishk Maurya and Mr. Ch Abhinandan Patra, Advs.

Mr Vinay Kaushik, Government Pleader.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

O R D E R

% 06.02.2026

1. The petition is for the following prayers:

“a. Quash and set aside attachment of the property belonging to the Petitioner attached vide Provisional Attachment Order No. 30 of 2025 (“PAO”) and all proceedings emanating therefrom;

b. Quash the Original Complaint No. 455 of 2025 filed by the Respondent in terms of Section 5(5) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 pending before the Adjudicating Authority pursuant to the impugned Provisional Attachment Order No. 30 of 2025; c. Quash Show Cause Notice dated 14.11.2025, issued by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 8(1) of the Prevention of Money laundering Act, 2002 pursuant to filing of the OC No. 455 of 2025;

d. Issue and appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of declaration that the attachment of properties belonging to the Petitioner is illegal and arbitrary and ultra-vires to the Provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002;”

2. The case of the petitioner is that the impugned Provisional Attachment Order was passed under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [‘PMLA’] consequent to the registration of an F.I.R. against a company named ‘Best Foods Limited’ [‘the company’] and its officials- Mr. Mohinder Pal Jindal (the petitioner’s father-in-law) and Mr. Dinesh Gupta (the petitioner’s husband), along with unknown public servants under Sections 403, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The company and its officials are alleged to have defrauded its creditors and misappropriated funds.

3. It is highlighted that the petitioner is not an accused in the said F.I.R. and the property which has been provisionally attached was purchased by her prior to the period of the alleged offence.

4. Pursuant to the issuance of the impugned Provisional Attachment Order, Original Complaint dated 29.10.2025 has been filed by respondent no. 2-Directorate of Enforcement under Section 5(5) of the PMLA. Subsequent thereto, the adjudicating authority, has issued Show Cause Notice dated 14.11.2025 to the petitioner under the mandate of Section 8(1) calling upon her to indicate the sources of income by which the subject property has been acquired. Further, she has been directed to produce the relevant evidence, and to show cause as to why the impugned Provisional Attachment Order must not be confirmed.

5. The petitioner has challenged the impugned Show Cause Notice on the grounds that the reasons assigned for issuance of the same does not fulfil the mandate under Section 8 of the PMLA, and the composition of the adjudicating authority does not fulfil the mandate under Section 6(2) thereof. Further, reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India,, 1997 (3) SCC 261 to submit that the adjudicating authority, being comprised of a non-judicial member, would not be

competent under law to adjudicate the matter.

6. A Division Bench of this Court, J. Sekar v. Union of India,, 2018:DHC:270-DB had occasion to deal with identical objections to the composition of single- member-Benches of adjudicating authorities under the PMLA. Rejecting the same, the Court held that under Section 6(5) thereof, the jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority may be exercised by single-member Benches. Further, the Court held the requirement of judicial members in administrative tribunals, as laid down in L. Chandra Kumar, would not apply to the adjudicating authority under the PMLA as the nature of the functio