'Not A Minor Offence, Part Of Crime Syndicate': Delhi HC Denies Bail To PMLA Accused Booked For Supplying Spurious Anti-Cancer MedicinesCase title: Lovee Narula vs.Directorate Of EnforcementCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 115The Delhi High Court has denied bail to an accused/applicant booked under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) for his alleged involvement in the...
Case title: Lovee Narula vs.Directorate Of Enforcement
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 115
The Delhi High Court has denied bail to an accused/applicant booked under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) for his alleged involvement in the illegal procurement of empty vials and raw materials of anti-cancer drugs.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh in his order said, "In the present case, the applicant has not been charged for some minor offence that has simple economic ramifications, rather he has been charged for supplying and selling of spurious life saving anti-cancer medicines and that he is part of an established crime syndicate. This factual position does not satisfy the consciousness of this Court and there are considerable reasons to believe that there is likelihood that the applicant might commit offence while on bail as the applicant does not have clean criminal antecedents. Thus, the said argument stands rejected".
Case title: Bhushan Power & Steel Limited vs. Union Of India & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 146
The Delhi High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against Bhushan Power & Steel Limited (BPSL) in relation to a complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) in view of Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Christian Michel Booked By ED In AgustaWestland Chopper Scam
Case Title: Christian Michel James v. ED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 273
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to British Arms Counsultant Christian James Michel in the FIR registered by Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the Agusta Westland chopper scam.
Title: RAMESH CHANDRA v. THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 350
The Delhi High Court granted bail to 86-year-old founder of Unitech Group Ramesh Chandra, in a money laundering case registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
Title: KARTI P. CHIDAMBARAM v. ED & other connected matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 440
The Delhi High Court has asked the trial court to defer arguments on charge in the money laundering cases related to Chinese visa and Aircel Maxis cases registered against Congress MP Karti Chidambaram.
AgustaWestland Scam: Delhi High Court Modifies Christian Michel's Bail Conditions In ED Case
Case Title: Christian Michel James v. ED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 600
The Delhi High Court modified the bail condition imposed on British Arms Counsultant Christian James Michel in the FIR registered by Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the Agusta Westland chopper scam.
Case title: Lovee Narula v. ED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 686
The Delhi High Court granted interim bail to an accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 to attend to his critically ill mother and to make necessary arrangements for her continued medical treatment.
Though the Enforcement Directorate submitted that the ground of illness of a family member of the accused is not available under Section 45 of PMLA, Justice Tejas Karia granted the relief on humanitarian grounds.
Case Title: LATA YADAV versus SHIVAKRITI AGRO PVT. LTD & ORS.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 696
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Amit Mahajan has held that the mere reference to certain assets in a provisional attachment order does not, by itself, oust the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. Similarly, the pendency of parallel investigations by the CBI or ED into allegations of fraud does not bar the arbitrator from adjudicating the dispute. Arbitration proceedings can continue independently, even when some aspects of the subject matter are under criminal investigation.
Title: JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 742
The Delhi High Court dismissed a plea moved by Bollywood actress Jacqueline Fernandez seeking quashing of Rs. 200 crores money laundering case involving alleged conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar.
Justice Anish Dayal said that her apprehension that any evidence would be self-incriminating cannot lead to quashing of the ECIR as statutory and constitutional protections are already provided and will have to be assessed in that rubric.
Case title: Amrit Pal Singh v. ED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 759
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that foreign recipients of proceeds of crime are not exempted from scrutiny under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, on a mere ground of 'contractual legitimacy' of transactions.
Title: Prabir Purkayastha v. ED and other connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 834
The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to Prabir Purkayastha, editor-in-chief and founder of news portal NewsClick, in Enforcement Directorate's money laundering case as well as Delhi Police's EOW FIR concerning allegations of foreign funding.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna pronounced the verdict and disposed of the pleas filed by Purkayastha in 2021.
Title: Arvind Dham v. ED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 993
Underscoring that being “sick and infirm” is not an automatic passport for bail in PMLA cases, the Delhi High Court has observed that medical plea cannot override the gravity of offence of money laundering.
Title: DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT THROUGH ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DELHI v. RAJESH KUMAR AGARWAL
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1104
The Delhi High Court ruled that allowing retention of seized property without strict adherence to PMLA provisions would amount to a violation of the legislative mandate of the enactment and would undermine the very purpose of incorporating procedural safeguards therein.
Confirmation Of Attachment Under PMLA Does Not Authorize Property Retention, Valid Order Must: Delhi High Court
Title: ANIRUDH PRATAP AGARWAL v. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1199
The Delhi High Court has observed that the confirmation of attachment of property involved in money laundering under Section 8(3) of PMLA does not authorize retention of such a property, as the process requires a valid order to be passed under Section 20.
Delhi High Court Says ED's Approach Of Not Arresting Main Accused 'Arbitrary', Grants Bail To Others
Title: VIPIN YADAV v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & other connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1203
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to three men in a money laundering case, while saying that the approach of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in not arresting the main accused with graver role was “manifestly arbitrary.”
Title: ED v. M/S. HI-TECH MERCANTILE INDIA PVT LTD & ORS. & ORS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1320
The Delhi High Court has held that coal block allocation obtained through misrepresentation or fraud leading to proceeds of crime amounts to an offence of money laundering under the PMLA.
Title: ED v. M/S PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD & other connected matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1432
The Delhi High Court ruled that the profits earned on bribe money after investment in share market amounts to proceeds of crime and is liable to be attached under the PMLA.
Title: MS KRRISH REALTECH PVT LTD THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECERATARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE & ANR and other connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1437
The Delhi High Court has observed that the provisional attachment order (PAO) cannot be challenged in the writ jurisdiction when an alternative remedy is available under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Title: DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT v. AMLENDU PANDEY (D) THROUGH LR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1565
The Delhi High Court clarified that Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) does not restrict the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to conduct searches only at the premises of persons who have been named in the prosecution complaint.
Case title: Naresh Bansal & Ors. v. Adjudicating Authority And Anr (and batch)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1590
The Delhi High Court has held that though cricket betting is not a separate predicate offence under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the property generated from such illegal activities can be attached by the Enforcement Directorate.
Case title: Sanjay Aggarwal v. Union Of India & Ors (and connected matters)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1628
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that probe by Serious Fraud Investigation Office into the affairs of a company does not bar parallel proceedings under Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
Title: SMT. POONAM GAHLLOT v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1636
The Delhi High Court has held that the summons issued for discovery and production of evidence under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, are governed by Code of Civil Procedure and not Code of Criminal Procedure.
Case title: Sachin Dev Duggal v. Directorate Of Enforcement
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1777
The Delhi High Court has held that non-bailable warrants (NBWs) can't be issued against a person who has only been summoned as a witness or suspect in a money-laundering investigation, unless such person is shown to be accused of non-bailable offence.