RAVI AGGARWAL vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE

Judgment text excerpt

$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 23.01.2026 + MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 28/2025 & CM APPL. 33462/2025 RAVI AGGARWAL .....Appellant Through: Mr. Naveen Malhotra and Mr. Ritvik Malhotra, Advocates. versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE .....Respondent Through: Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL) 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2017 [hereinafter, “PMLA Act”], challenging the order dated 17th March, 2025 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange Management Act/SAFEMA/NDPS/PMLA, New Delhi in FPA PMLA 1908/DLI/2017. 2. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that there was no order passed under Section 20(1) of the PMLA Act, and therefore, the entire proceedings were without jurisdiction. He submits that this legal position has been accepted by this Court vide its judgment in Anirudh Pratap Agarwal vs. Enforcement of Directorate [Neutral Citation No. 2025:DHC:8652- Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 28/2025 Page 1 of 5 By:VAISHALI PRUTHI Signing Date:27.01.2026 16:59:37 DB], observing as under:- “34. Section 20 is the crucial link between search and seizure under Section 17 and adjudication under Section 8 of the PMLA. Under Section 20(1), once property has been seized or frozen, an officer authorised by the Director may, on the basis of available material and after recording a “reason to believe” that such property is required for adjudication, can pass an order retaining or continuing the freezing of such property for up to 180 days. The provisions of Section 20 are the immediate next step upon the act of seizure unde