The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (November 4) dismissed a plea moved by a partnership firm Puppy Tours and Travels LLP, which had challenged proceedings initiated by ED including search and seizure following a complaint registered in connection with allegations of betting and gambling activities.

The court also dismissed another plea challenging the agency's search and show cause notice.

Justice M Nagaprasanna while pronouncing the order said, "The Petitions stand dismissed. Petitioners are reserved liberty to avail the remedy as available in law, in light of observations made in the course of the order".

A detailed copy of the order is awaited.

The petitioner Puppy Tours and Travels LLP had sought to declare the search, seizure and freezing operations and consequent retention of property and records, conducted by ED as illegal and bad in law. It has also challenged a show cause notice issued by the ED on 29.09.2025 as well as all proceedings emanating therefrom.

The plea claimed that the ED had registered a complaint in 2025 allegedly on the basis of FIRs under various provisions including IPC Section 420 (cheating), registered over a period of 10-15 years relating to alleged betting and gambling activities. The plea claimed that the ED had alleged that several persons are involved in online betting and gambling activities and proceeds of crime have been generated from the same, which has been laundered attracting penal consequences under Section 3 of the PMLA.

The petitioner alleged that the ED conducted search and seizure on 22.08.2025 to 09.09.2025 and seized valuables and has also frozen various bank accounts.

Thereafter a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 29.09.2025. The petition states that KC Veerendra (petitioner in the connected matter) was granted bail by the trial court.

It further stated that only one predicate offence survives and even in that the concerned agency has filed a closure report (B report). Therefore, if the predicate offences have been quashed/ closed/ acquitted and in the sole surviving predicate offence, the agency has filed a closure report, the ED does not have any valid reason to believe in terms of Section 17(1) of the PMLA and moreso having nexus with the live predicate offence.

Counsel for petitioners: Advocates Mayank Jain, Madhur Jain, Arpit Goel and Rajath