New Delhi, May 14 (PTI) Enforcement Directorate on Thursday opposed a petition filed by businessman Robert Vadra in the Delhi High Court challenging a trial court order that summoned him in a money laundering case linked to a land deal in Haryana's Shikohpur.

The counsel for the investigating agency argued before Justice Manoj Jain that Vadra's petition was based on a false legal submission and should therefore be dismissed with costs.

The agency countered the submission by Vadra's lawyer, Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi, who argued that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has no jurisdiction to probe the case as the offences filed against the petitioner under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act were not "scheduled offences" under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act at the relevant time.

Singhvi said the land deal admittedly happened between 2008 and 2012, and the offences forming the basis of the ED case were only included in the schedule in 2013 and 2018.

However, the ED's lawyer said the petitioner's contention was incorrect and was a "complete false statement on law".

The court has listed the matter for further hearing on May 18 and also asked Vadra's counsel to respond to the ED's claim.

"If your plank is totally wrong, how will we help you even otherwise? We will hear it on Monday," Justice Jain said.

On April 15, 2026, the trial court took cognisance of offences in the charge sheet filed by ED in July 2025 and asked Vadra and others to appear before it on May 16.

This was the first time that any probe agency filed a charge sheet against 57-year-old Vadra in a criminal case. In April 2025, the ED had questioned him for three consecutive days.

In the cognisance order, Special Judge Sushant Changotra had said that the charge sheet and a prima facie broader scrutiny of the documents, disclosed sufficient material to proceed further against Vadra and eight other accused persons.

"Accordingly, I take cognisance of the offences under Section 3 (money laundering) read with Section 70 (offences committed by companies) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, punishable under Section 4 of the Act," the judge had said.

The probe against Vadra, husband of Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, is linked to the land deal at Manesar-Shikohpur (now Sector 83) in Gurugram district.

The deal was done in February 2008 by a company named Skylight Hospitality Pvt Ltd, where Vadra was a director earlier. Under the deal, the company purchased a 3.5-acre plot in Shikohpur from Onkareshwar Properties for Rs 7.5 crore.

At the time, Haryana was ruled by the Congress government led by Bhupinder Singh Hooda.

Four years later, in September 2012, the company sold the land to realty major DLF for Rs 58 crore.

The deal got embroiled in controversy in October 2012 after IAS officer Ashok Khemka, then posted as director general of land consolidation and land records-cum-inspector-general of registration, cancelled the mutation after categorising the transaction as violative of the state consolidation act and some related procedures.

Vadra has been denying any wrongdoing, calling the case a "political vendetta" against him and his family, including former Congress president Sonia Gandhi and Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi.

Besides Vadra, summonses were also issued to Kewal Singh Virk, Sky Light Hospitality Pvt Ltd (now Skylight Hospitality LLP), Sky Light Realty Private Limited, Real Earth Estates Private Limited (now Real Earth Estates LLP), Blue Breeze Trading Private Limited (now Blue Breeze Trading LLP) and others. PTI ADS RUK RUK

Money laundering jurisdiction dispute over Haryana land deal summons and scheduled offences under the PMLA Enforcement Directorate opposed a petition challenging a trial court summons in a money laundering case arising from a Haryana land deal, while the petitioner argued that the agency lacked jurisdiction because the predicate offences were not scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act at the relevant time. The trial court had earlier taken cognisance of the charge sheet and directed the accused to appear, referring to sufficient material to proceed further under the Act.