$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 08.08.2025 Judgment pronounced on:24.09.2025 + LPA 362/2020, CM APPL. 11287/2021 (For disposing off the appeal, CM APPL. 17382/2023 (Seeking permission to represent the respondent through resolution professional) & CM APPL. 67564/2024 (Seeking intervention)

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR. ...Appellants Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel, Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Panel Counsel, Mr. Kartik Sabharwal, Mr. Kanishk Maurya and Mr. Satyam, Advocate.

versus M/S VIKAS WSP LTD & ORS. ...Respondents Through: Mr. I.P.S. Oberoi, Mr. R.K.

Srivastava and Ms. Dhwani Shrivastava, Advocates for Respondent No. 1.

Mr. Arshdeep Singh Khurana, Mr. Harsh Srivastava, Mr. Sidak Singh and Ms. Dikksha Ashok Ramnani, Advocates for Respondent No. 3.

+ W.P.(CRL) 86/2022, CRL.M.A. 911/2022 (Stay), CRL.M.A.

13185/2022 (Quash/set aside the provisional attachment order No. 06/2021 dt. 01.12.2021) & CRL.M.A. 13186/2022 (Stay)

GEM INTERNATIONAL & ORS. ...Petitioners Through: Mr. Shantanu Parashar, Mr.

Rohan Malik and Mr. Shaurya Chourasiya, Advocates for Petitioner No. 2 to 4.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...Respondents Through: Mr. N. Hariharan, Senior Advocate, Dr. Sushil Kumar Gupta, Ms. Sunita Gupta, Mr. Sakshit Bhardwaj, Ms. Punya Rekha Angara, Ms. Vasundhara N, Mr. Aman Akhtar, Ms. Sana Singh, Mr. Vinayak Gautam, Advocates for Respondent No.

1.

Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel, Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Panel Counsel, Mr. Kartik Sabharwal, Mr. Kanishk Maurya and Mr. Satyam, Advocate. CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHA SHANKAR

J U D G M E N T

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

1. By the present Judgment, we intend to dispose of two proceedings, one being a Letters Patent Appeal against the Judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court and another being a Writ Petition preferred against a Provisional Attachment Order, PAO

2. The Letters Patent Appeal, being LPA 362/2020, has been filed by the Directorate of Enforcement, ED under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, assailing the Judgment dated 18.11.2020, Impugned Judgment dated 18.11.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge. By the said judgment, the learned Single Judge allowed W.P.(C) No. 3551/2020 filed by the Respondents herein and, consequently, set aside the Notice/ Summons dated 26.05.2020 issued by the learned Adjudicating Authority in Original Complaint No. 1228/2019 dated 05.12.2019. The learned Single Judge has held that, the said Notice/ Summons was beyond the period of 180 days, as prescribed under Section 5(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, PMLA, from the date of the PAO dated 13.11.2019 and thereby, had expired without any order being passed by the learned Adjudicating Authority under Section 8(3) of the PMLA.

3. The Writ Petition, being W.P.(CRL) 86/2022, challenges, inter alia, PAO No. 6/2021 dated 01.12.2021 passed by the ED. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Petitioners therein filed an application, being CRL.M.A. 13185/2022, seeking quashing of the aforesaid PAO. The grounds urged in support of the application were, in essence, similar to those which had constituted the foundation of the Impugned Judgment dated 18.11.2020, against which LPA

362/2020 has been filed by the ED.

4. Shorn of unnecessary details, as asserted by the Appellants in LPA 362/2020 and the Petitioners in W.P.(CRL) 86/2022, the sole question arising for consideration in the present matters, is whether, in light of COVID-19 pandemic, the orders passed by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in In re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, Suo Motu W.P. (C) No. 3/2020 extending limitation periods, would also apply to proceedings under Section 5 of the PMLA, which mandates that a provisional attachment must be confirmed within a maximum period of 180 days by the learned Adjudicating Authority under Section 8(3) of the PMLA.

5. The submissions advanced by learned counsel for both sides, in both matters, were c