Roop Bansal & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court)
Delhi HC Orders Release of M3M’s Seized Assets as ED Secures ₹404 Crore Through Attachment
Summary: The Delhi High Court, in Roop Bansal & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors., W.P.(CRL) 1751/2023, decided on 14 October 2026, directed the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) to immediately release seized cash, jewellery, vehicles and fixed deposits belonging to the M3M Group of Companies after taking note of a subsequent provisional attachment of immovable properties valued at ₹404 crore. Justice Mini Pushkarna observed that the ED had already secured properties representing the alleged proceeds of crime attributable to the M3M Group and had expressly stated that the movable assets and fixed deposits seized earlier were no longer required for investigation in the instant case. The Court also directed the return of title deeds deposited by the petitioners pursuant to an earlier judicial order. However, the Court clarified that its directions did not amount to any determination regarding the legality or merits of the provisional attachment or the pending proceedings against the M3M Group.The writ petition was instituted in 2023 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioners had approached the High Court seeking relief against summons issued by the ED, seizure of assets and freezing of bank accounts. One of the principal prayers concerned summons dated 6 June 2023 requiring petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 to appear personally before the investigating agency on 7 June 2023. During the final hearing, counsel for the petitioners submitted that the challenge relating to these summons had become infructuous because of subsequent developments. The High Court accepted this position and recorded that the corresponding prayer no longer required adjudication. The Court thereafter considered the remaining reliefs concerning the assets seized during the investigation.
The proceedings arose in the context of an investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) involving the M3M Group and its promoters. The ED had conducted searches under Section 17 of the PMLA on 1 July 2023 at the business and residential premises of the M3M Group and its owners or promoters, including petitioner Nos. 1 to 3. During these proceedings, the investigating agency seized various movable assets, including luxury vehicles, cash, jewellery, precious metals, bullion and fixed deposits. These assets subsequently became the subject matter of the writ petition. The High Court examined their continued retention in light of developments occurring during the pendency of the proceedings rather than undertaking a final adjudication of the underlying money-laundering allegations.
A significant development occurred on 17 July 2026, when the ED issued a Provisional Attachment Order attaching various land parcels belonging to the petitioners, with an aggregate stated value of ₹404,00,00,000. The attachment was intended to secure property representing the alleged proceeds of crime. The High Court reproduced the relevant attachment order and noted that substantial immovable assets had been brought under provisional attachment. This subsequent attachment materially affected the controversy concerning the earlier seizure of movable assets because the ED itself relied upon the ₹404 crore attachment while explaining why the seized cash, jewellery, vehicles and fixed deposits were no longer part of the investigation in the instant case.
The petitioners submitted that the land parcels provisionally attached by the ED were owned by them and were free from encumbrances. To substantiate this submission, they filed an affidavit dated 19 September 2026 along with CRL.M.A. 29769/2026. The affidavit stated that the properties attached through Provisional Attachment Order No. 11 of 2026 were free from encumbrances, charges, liens, claims and third-party interests. It further referred to certified copies of the relevant Jamabandi records accompanying the application. The High Court recorded the petitioners’ representation concerning ownership and the absence of encumbrances. The judgment did not undertake a separate final determination of title or adjudicate competing property claims; the affidavit was considered in the context of the relief sought against continued retention of the seized assets.
The ED’s counter affidavit dated 24 August 2026 played a decisive role in the disposal of the writ petition. The agency acknowledged that significant subsequent developments had occurred while the proceedings remained pending before the High Court. It stated that Provisional Attachment Order No. 11/2026 had attached properties worth ₹404 crore belonging to the M3M Group entities and that the proceeds of crime attributable to the group stood secured through this attachment. Importantly, the ED made this statement without prejudice to its rights and contentions in the prosecution proceedings pending before the Special Court under the PMLA. The agency further submitted that the seized cash, jewellery, vehicles and fixed deposits identified in Tables 1 to 4 of its counter affidavit were no longer part of the investigation in the instant case.
The first category of assets comprised 17 vehicles seized during the investigation. The vehicle schedule included several luxury and premium automobiles, including vehicles manufactured by Audi, Ferrari, Rolls-Royce, Lamborghini, Land Rover, Bentley, Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Lexus, Citroën and Toyota. The vehicles were recorded against different companies and individuals associated with the M3M Group. Their particulars, registration details and ownership information were set out in Table 1 of the ED’s counter affidavit, which the High Court reproduced in its judgment. Since the investigating agency expressly stated that these vehicles were no longer required for the investigation in the instant case, the Court directed their release along with the other assets specified in the counter affidavit.
The fourth category comprised two fixed deposits aggregating ₹17 crore. As recorded in Table 4 of the ED’s counter affidavit, the fixed deposits stood in the name of M3M India Private Limited. One fixed deposit was for ₹10 crore and the other for ₹7 crore. These deposits formed part of the assets whose release was sought in the writ proceedings. The High Court included both fixed deposits within its operative directions after considering the ED’s statement regarding their status in the investigation. The release direction thus extended beyond physical assets seized during searches and expressly covered the financial instruments identified in the counter affidavit.
After considering the parties’ submissions and the ED’s subsequent provisional attachment of ₹404 crore worth of land, the High Court directed that all assets belonging to the M3M Group of Companies and detailed in Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the counter affidavit be released forthwith. The direction specifically required delivery to the petitioners or their authorised representatives. The Court’s decision was based on the factual position emerging from the ED’s own affidavit, particularly its acknowledgment that the listed assets were no longer part of the investigation in the instant case. The judgment did not lay down a general proposition that provisional attachment of immovable property automatically requires the release of every movable asset previously seized under the PMLA.
An important factual distinction was recorded concerning the land covered by the deposited title deeds. Counsel for the petitioners clarified that the land parcels whose title documents had been deposited pursuant to the order dated 12 June 2023 were not included in the properties provisionally attached by the ED on 17 July 2026. The High Court expressly recorded this submission. Consequently, the return of title deeds concerned land distinct from the immovable properties covered by the ₹404 crore attachment. This distinction is material because the Court’s directions did not require the ED to release title documents relating to the provisionally attached properties or to remove the attachment imposed upon those properties.
The Court expressly reserved the merits of the underlying enforcement action. It clarified that its order should not be construed as expressing any opinion on the merits of the Provisional Attachment Order dated 17 July 2026 or on the pending proceedings against the M3M Group of Companies. Accordingly, the ₹404 crore provisional attachment was neither quashed nor declared invalid. The prosecution proceedings before the Special Court under the PMLA were also left unaffected. The Court confined itself to the relief justified by the subsequent attachment and the ED’s statement that the specified seized assets were no longer required for investigation in the instant case.
The judgment therefore illustrates a fact-specific judicial direction for release of seized property during the pendency of PMLA proceedings. Its significance lies in the distinction between securing alleged proceeds of crime through provisional attachment and continuing to retain other assets that the investigating agency no longer treats as part of the investigation in the particular case. The Court took account of the ED’s position that substantial immovable properties had already been attached, while preserving the agency’s rights in the pending prosecution and attachment proceedings. The decision should not be interpreted as a finding that the petitioners were innocent of the allegations, that the attached properties were unlawfully secured or that the ED’s prosecution had failed.
In conclusion, the Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the immediate release of 17 vehicles, ₹16,88,300 in cash, jewellery and precious metals valued at ₹5,77,15,325, fixed deposits aggregating ₹17 crore, and the title deeds deposited pursuant to the earlier judicial order, subject to the identification of assets in the ED’s counter affidavit. The challenge concerning the June 2023 summons was recorded as infructuous. All pending applications were also disposed of. The operative outcome provided relief concerning the specified seized assets and deposited documents, while leaving the ₹404 crore provisional attachment and the pending PMLA proceedings to be dealt with independently on their merits.
The Delhi High Court directed the immediate release of cash, jewellery, vehicles and fixed deposits belonging to the M3M Group after noting that the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) had provisionally attached properties worth ₹404 crore. The Court also recorded the ED’s statement that the seized assets were no longer part of the investigation in the case.
Justice Mini Pushkarna further directed the return of land title deeds deposited by the petitioners pursuant to an earlier judicial order. The Court expressly clarified that its directions did not constitute an opinion on the merits of the provisional attachment order or the pending proceedings against the M3M Group.
The petition had been instituted in 2023 under Article 226 of the Constitution, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioners sought relief concerning summons issued by the ED, seizure of assets and freezing of bank accounts. Their challenge included summons dated 6 June 2023 requiring the personal appearance of petitioner numbers 1 and 2 on 7 June 2023.
At the hearing, counsel for the petitioners submitted that the relief concerning those summons had become infructuous. The Court accordingly recorded that this part of the petition no longer survived for consideration. The remaining relief was examined in light of subsequent developments, particularly the ED’s provisional attachment of land belonging to the petitioners.
By a provisional attachment order dated 17 July 2026, the ED had attached various land parcels valued at ₹404 crore. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the attached properties belonged to them and were free from encumbrances. An affidavit dated 19 September 2026 was also placed before the Court in support of that position.
The affidavit stated that the attached properties were free from encumbrances, charges, liens, claims and third-party interests. It referred to certified copies of the relevant Jamabandi records accompanying the application to support the assertion regarding the status of the land.
The ED’s counter affidavit dated 24 August 2026 recorded that significant developments had occurred during the pendency of the petition. According to the agency, the provisional attachment of properties worth ₹404 crore had secured the proceeds of crime attributable to the M3M Group. This submission was made without prejudice to the ED’s rights and contentions in the prosecution proceedings pending before the Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
In those circumstances, the ED stated that the seized cash, jewellery, vehicles and fixed deposits identified in Tables 1 to 4 of its counter affidavit were no longer part of the investigation in the instant case. The Court reproduced those tables and relied on the agency’s stated position while deciding the petition.
The listed assets included 17 vehicles, cash of ₹16,88,300, precious metals, jewellery and bullion valued at ₹5,77,15,325, and two fixed deposits standing in the name of M3M India Private Limited. The fixed deposits were for ₹10 crore and ₹7 crore respectively. The vehicle list included cars from several luxury automobile manufacturers.
After considering the submissions and the subsequent attachment, the Court directed that the assets belonging to the M3M Group of Companies, as detailed in the four tables, be released forthwith. Delivery was directed to be made to the petitioners or their authorised representatives.
The Court separately considered the title deeds deposited by the petitioners in compliance with its order dated 12 June 2023. Since the ED had already secured ₹404 crore through the provisional attachment order, the Court directed that those title deeds also be returned forthwith.
A material clarification concerned the identity of the land covered by those documents. The Court recorded counsel’s submission that the parcels whose title deeds had been deposited under the earlier order did not form part of the ED’s provisional attachment dated 17 July 2026. The return of these documents therefore concerned land distinct from the attached properties.
The relief was confined to the assets identified in the counter affidavit and the deposited title deeds. The judgment did not set aside the ₹404 crore provisional attachment or decide the merits of the proceedings against the M3M Group. Its operative directions reflected the subsequent securing of properties and the ED’s statement regarding the seized assets.
The decision accordingly provides a fact-specific instance of release of seized property during pending PMLA proceedings. The Court’s express reservation regarding the attachment and prosecution is central to understanding its scope: the petitioners obtained release of the specified assets, while the merits of the attachment and pending proceedings remained undecided.
With these directions, the High Court disposed of the writ petition and all pending applications.
