DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT vs M/S MAHANIVESH OILS & FOODS PVT LTD

Judgment text excerpt

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 12 March 2026 Pronounced on: 16 March 2026 + LPA 144/2016 DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT .....Appellant Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain and Mr. Anupam Sharma, Special Counsel with Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Panel Counsel, Mr. Satyam, Ms. Riya Sachdev and Mr. Pranjal Tripathi, Advs. versus M/S MAHANIVESH OILS & FOODS PVT LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Parag Tripathi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. D.S. Kohli, Ms. Rini Mehra, Mr. Yash Kadyan and Ms. Mannat Kohli, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA JUDGMENT % 16.03.2026 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. A. The lis, and the issue involved 1. This Letters Patent Appeal, against judgment dated 25 January 2016 of a learned Single Judge of this Court, involves the interpretation of Section 5(1)1 of the Prevention of Money Laundering 1 5. Attachment of property involved in money-laundering. – Signature Not Verified LPA 144/2016 Page 1 of 61 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:16.03.2026 14:32:30 Act, 20022. The neat question that arises for consideration may be framed thus: “If the scheduled offence is committed and, from the proceeds thereof, property is purchased before the coming into force of the PMLA, can it be attached under Section 5(1) thereof, if the offender continues to remain in possession of, and continues to use, the property even after the PMLA came into force?” 2. The learned Single Judge has, in the impugned judgment, answered the question in the negative and has, therefore, set aside the (1) Where the Director or any other officer not below the rank of Deputy Director authorised by the Director for the purposes of this section, has reason to believe (the reason for such belief to be recorded in writing), on the basis of material in his