2025 (3) TMI 511 - SC - Money Laundering

Enforcement Directorate directed to finalize Rs. 40 crore property deal and conduct fresh auction in money laundering case

NOWHERA SHAIK & ANR. Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

SC addressed a miscellaneous application in a money laundering case involving provisional attachment orders. The court directed Enforcement Directorate to ... Money Laundering - provisional attachment order - maintainability of miscellaneous application filed by the petitioner - HELD THAT:- The Enforcement Directorate is on the verge of finalizing one deal with respect to one property at around Rs. 40,00,00,000/-. Let this deal be now finalized. It is further informed that so far as the second property is concerned, the first round of auction has failed. If that be so then, the Enforcement Directorate should at the earliest go for a fresh round of auction and see to it that the second property is also sold. It is reiterated if the amount of Rs.25,00,00,000/- is not deposited within a period of three months from today, the bail shall stand automatically cancelled without any further orders from this Court and it will be open for the Enforcement Directorate to take back the accused-lady in custody. If the accused goes back to jail then perhaps we need not have to further monitor this particular litigation. We shall close the matter in the event if arrest is effected. It is now for the Enforcement Directorate to go ahead with the auctioning of all the attached properties so as to try to recover the maximum amount possible. Conclusion - The miscellaneous application could be considered in light of the petitioner's proposal, despite questions of maintainability. Post this matter on 14th July, 2025. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe primary issues considered in the judgment include:Whether the miscellaneous application filed by the petitioner is maintainable, given the nature of the application and the legal framework governing such applications.The status of the properties proposed by the petitioner for auction, specifically whether they are free from encumbrances and legally owned by the petitioner.The legality and procedure of auctioning the properties to generate funds for refunding investors.The compliance of the petitioner with the court's orders, including the deposit of a specified amount as directed by the court.The Enforcement Directorate's authority and process in attaching and auctioning properties and vehicles to recover funds for claimants.The implications of non-compliance by the petitioner on the continuation of bail.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISMaintainability of the Miscellaneous ApplicationRelevant legal framework and precedents: The court considered whether the miscellaneous application was akin to a review application, which is generally not maintainable in law.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court acknowledged the preliminary objection regarding maintainability but proceeded to consider the petitioner's proposal concerning the properties.Conclusions: The court decided to consider the application based on the proposal for auctioning properties to refund investors.Status and Auction of PropertiesRelevant legal framework and precedents: The court required verification of the ownership and encumbrance status of the properties proposed for auction.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court directed the Enforcement Directorate and the State of Telangana to investigate and report on the properties' status.Key evidence and findings: The Enforcement Directorate's report confirmed that two properties were free from encumbrances, while issues were noted with the third property.Application of law to facts: Based on the reports, the court directed the auction of the two unencumbered properties.Treatment of competing arguments: The court noted potential claims on the properties but deferred these to be resolved through appropriate legal channels.Conclusions: The court authorized the auction of the unencumbered properties and directed further verification and auction of additional properties.Compliance with Court OrdersRelevant legal framework and precedents: The court emphasized compliance with its orders as a condition for maintaining bail.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court granted extensions for compliance but warned of automatic bail cancellation upon non-compliance.Key evidence and findings: The petitioner had not deposited the required amount or fully complied with property listing directives.Application of law to facts: The court reiterated the conditions for bail and the consequences of non-compliance.Conclusions: The court granted a final extension for compliance, emphasizing the consequences of failure to comply.Authority and Process of the Enforcement DirectorateRelevant legal framework and precedents: The court considered the Enforcement Directorate's authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to attach and auction properties.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court authorized the Enforcement Directorate to proceed with auctions and to attach additional properties as necessary.Key evidence and findings: The Enforcement Directorate had attached numerous properties and was in the process of auctioning them.Application of law to facts: The court directed the Enforcement Directorate to continue its efforts to recover funds for claimants.Conclusions: The court supported the Enforcement Directorate's actions and directed further auctions to maximize recovery.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe court held that the miscellaneous application could be considered in light of the petitioner's proposal, despite questions of maintainability.The court confirmed that two of the petitioner's properties were free from encumbrances and authorized their auction by the Enforcement Directorate.The court emphasized the importance of compliance with its orders, linking non-compliance to automatic bail cancellation.The court supported the Enforcement Directorate's authority under PMLA to attach and auction properties and directed further actions to recover funds for investors.Significant quotes include the court's directive that 'if the amount of Rs.25,00,00,000/- is not deposited within a period of three months from today, the bail shall stand automatically cancelled without any further orders from this Court.'