Delhi High Court · 2025-03-28
KOUSHALYA DEVI JHUNJHUNWALA vs DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
- Citation / case number
- MISC. APPEAL(PMLA)-46/2024 2025:DHC:2190-DB
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Petitioner
- KOUSHALYA DEVI JHUNJHUNWALA
- Respondent
- DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Judgment text excerpt
$~6 to 8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 28th March, 2025 + MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 46/2024 & CM APPL. 73696/2024 KOUSHALYA DEVI JHUNJHUNWALA .....APPELLANT Through: Mr. Madhav Khurana, Senior Advocate with Assisting Counsel (Appearance not given) versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT ....RESPONDENT Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel for ED, Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Panel Counsel with Mr. Kanishk Maurya and Mr. Kartik Sabharwal, Advocates. 7 + MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 47/2024 & CM APPL. 73699/2024 SANGITA JHUNJHUNWALA ..... APPELLANT Through: Mr. Madhav Khurana, Senior Advocate with Assisting Counsel (Appearance not given) versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT .....RESPONDENT Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel for ED, Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Panel Counsel with Mr. Kanishk Maurya and Mr. Kartik Sabharwal, Advocates. Signature Not Verified Signed By:NAMITA MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 46/2024 & conn. matters Page 1 of 7 DHYANI Signing Date:02.04.2025 18:12:41 8 + MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 48/2024 & CM APPL. 73702/2024 SURUCHI JHUNJHUNWALA .... APPELLANT Through: Mr. Madhav Khurana, Senior Advocate with Assisting Counsel (Appearance not given) versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT .....RESPONDENT Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel for ED, Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Panel Counsel with Mr. Kanishk Maurya and Mr. Kartik Sabharwal, Advocates. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present appeals under Section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’) have been filed by the Appellants challenging the impugned order of the PMLA Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) dated 7th August, 2024. 3. Vide the impugned order, the Tribunal had di