Arun Suri Vs Directorate of Enforcement (Delhi High Court)
The appeal was filed under Section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) challenging the order dated 27.11.2025 passed by the Appellate Tribunal under the PMLA, which upheld the confirmation of the Provisional Attachment Order dated 28.07.2017 issued by the Directorate of Enforcement. The attachment concerned property situated at 255, Sainik Vihar, Pitam Pura, Delhi. The appellant also sought interim relief. The Court first allowed an application for condonation of a delay of nine days in re-filing the appeal before considering the appeal on merits.
The appellant contended that the subject property had never been purchased by him. According to the appellant, the property had been purchased in 1991 by his father from his own income in the joint names of the father and the appellant. It was submitted that the property had remained with the family since 1991 and that the appellant had not contributed any amount towards its acquisition.
The appellant argued that the property could not be attached as “value thereof” under Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA because it had not been purchased by him and his interest in the property had devolved through his deceased father. It was contended that Section 2(1)(u) permits attachment only of tainted properties obtained directly or indirectly as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. Reliance was placed upon the Karnataka High Court decision in M. Malthesh Vs. Directorate of Enforcement and the Supreme Court decision in Pavana Dibbur Vs. Directorate of Enforcement to contend that property purchased prior to the commission of the scheduled offence could not be attached.
