Gautam Khaitan & Anr. Vs Union of India & Anr. (Supreme Court of India)
The Supreme Court considered the challenge by Gautam Khaitan and another to the Delhi High Court order dated 15.11.2025 and found no case warranting interference. The Special Leave Petition was accordingly dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of.
The underlying proceedings arose from the Government’s acquisition of 12 AW-101 VVIP helicopters from Agusta Westland. According to the respondents, relaxation of the service-ceiling requirement from 6,000 metres to 4,500 metres allegedly enabled Agusta Westland to participate in the bidding process and involved illegal gratification and kickbacks. The Delhi High Court judgment records allegations concerning routing of funds through IDS India, IDS Tunisia and Aeromatrix Info Solution Ltd. (AISL). Following CBI FIR No. RC-217/2013/A0003 dated 12.03.2013, the Enforcement Directorate registered ECIR No. DLZO/15/2014/AD(VM) dated 03.07.2014 under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). After a search and seizure operation on 22.09.2014, the ED issued a Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) under Section 5 of the PMLA on 15.11.2014.
Read Delhi HC Judgment in this case: Delhi HC Upholds PMLA Provisional Attachment Without Prior Chargesheet
The learned Single Judge considered whether the PAO could be issued without a charge-sheet under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, whether the authorised officer had material giving rise to a “reason to believe”, and whether prior notice and hearing were required. The Single Judge held that the omission of clause (b) of Section 5(1) by the Prevention of Money Laundering (Amendment) Act, 2013 meant that a person need not necessarily have been charged with a scheduled offence before a PAO could be issued. The first proviso concerning a report under Section 173 CrPC applied to a person already charged, while the second proviso permitted attachment where its statutory conditions were satisfied.
The Single Judge further found that the PAO was a tentative and preventive measure and that the FIR, statements recorded under the PMLA and financial records provided cogent material for the officer’s belief. Prior hearing was also held unnecessary at the provisional attachment stage, since the PMLA provided subsequent adjudication and appellate remedies under Sections 8, 26 and 42.
The Division Bench declined to interfere. It emphasised the limited exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 where efficacious statutory remedies existed and held that interference with a PAO was warranted only in circumstances such as mala fide exercise of power, patent arbitrariness or manifest lack of jurisdiction. The Court relied upon its decision in Directorate of Enforcement v. M/s. Hi-tech Merchantile India Pvt. Ltd & Ors. & Ors. dated 17.10.2025, as reproduced in the judgment, concerning the operation of the provisos to Section 5(1). It also concurred with the Single Judge that the PAO was supported by cogent material and constituted a tentative safeguard for future PMLA proceedings.
The parties had relied upon several authorities, including Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary v. Union of India and Radha Mohan Lakhotia v. Deputy Director, as well as authorities concerning the effect of amendments and provisos. The judgment also records reliance on Zile Singh v. State of Haryana.
The Supreme Court judgment supplied here contains no separate discussion of the merits or independent reasoning concerning Section 5 of the PMLA. After hearing senior counsel for the petitioners, it simply recorded that no case to interfere with the Delhi High Court’s order dated 15.11.2025 was made out. The Special Leave Petition was therefore dismissed and all pending applications were disposed of.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court’s disposition is confined to declining interference with the impugned Delhi High Court order. The supplied Supreme Court order does not expressly record any broader independent ruling on the interpretation of Section 5 of the PMLA, the validity or retrospectivity of the amendments, the sufficiency of the material supporting the PAO, or the requirement of prior hearing. The Delhi High Court’s dismissal of the appeal therefore remained undisturbed.
Cases Discussed
- Directorate of Enforcement v. M/s. Hi-tech Merchantile India Pvt. Ltd & Ors. & Ors. (Delhi High Court), dated 17.10.2025
- Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary v. Union of India (Supreme Court)
- Radha Mohan Lakhotia v. Deputy Director
- Zile Singh v. State of Haryana, (2004) 8 SCC 1
- Georgia Railroad & Banking Co. v. Smith
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Having heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners, no case to interfere with the impugned order dated 15.11.2025 passed by the High Court of Delhi is made out.
2. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
3. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
