2025 (12) TMI 1738

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. Mansi, Advocates for R-2. Mr. Aman Lekhi, Senior Advocate with his briefing counsel. (Appearance not given.) Mr. Atmaram N.S. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kanika Singhal and Mr. Shivam Singh Rana, Advocates for IRP of three C. Shelter. ORDER 1. This revision petition is directed against order dated 27th November, 2025, passed by the Court of ASJ-02, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi (Special Court dealing with proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [PMLA]), in Misc. No. 1337/2025 [CT No. 09/2025], an application moved by Respondent No. 2 under Section 8(8) PMLA. 2. By the impugned order, the aforenoted application has been allowed and the property attached by Provisional Attachment Order ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ails the impugned order on two principal grounds. First, it is urged that an application seeking restoration "during trial" under the second proviso to Section 8(8) PMLA cannot be considered before the stage contemplated by the Prevention of Money Laundering (Restoration of Confiscated Property) Rules, 2016, particularly Rule 3A(1), which predicates such consideration "after framing of the charge" under section 4 of PMLA. Second, and more fundamentally, it is submitted that the procedure mandated by Rule 3A has not been followed. In particular, Rule 3A(4) bars any restoration order "without giving an opportunity of being heard to the owner of the property". 5. It is pointed out that the impugned order does not record any submissions on b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Anr. (Case No. 13877/2025), and submits that the directions in the present matter may be structured so as to preserve the efficacy of proceedings before the fora concerned. 8. This Court is not persuaded to sustain the impugned order insofar as it concerns Asset No. 6 in Table No. 27, for a short but decisive reason. The statutory safeguards embedded in Rule 3A were not adhered to. Two features of Rule 3A are central. First, Rule 3A(1) contemplates consideration by the Special Court "after framing of the charge" under section 4 of PMLA, and further contemplates publication of a notice in two daily newspapers calling upon claimants to submit and establish claims. Second, Rule 3A(4) creates an explicit bar: no restoration order shall be pa....