Purushotam Rawat & Anr. Vs Director (Delhi High Court)
Summary: The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the Provisional Attachment Order dated 24.02.2026 issued by the Directorate of Enforcement under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), along with the press release dated 02.03.2026. The attachment arose from an ED investigation concerning alleged illegal betting activities through 1xBet. The ED alleged that Parthtech Developers LLP, founded by petitioner No. 1 Purushotam Rawat, received approximately Rs. 18.08 crores attributable to 1xBet advertisements, including approximately Rs. 5.18 crores relating to advertisements targeted at users in India. The PAO identified Rs. 18,10,90,052.45/- as alleged proceeds of crime and attached a fixed deposit of Rs. 1,10,90,052.45/- and three immovable properties having an aggregate value of approximately Rs. 17 crores. The petitioners challenged, inter alia, the existence of a scheduled offence and the jurisdiction to invoke Section 5 of the PMLA without a pre-existing criminal case relating to a scheduled offence. The ED opposed maintainability on the ground that efficacious statutory remedies were available under the PMLA. The Court held that the petitioners had failed to establish a manifest lack of jurisdiction warranting exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The Court noted the FIRs referring to cheating under Section 420 of the IPC, corresponding to Section 318(4) of the BNS, and also considered the ED’s communication dated 27.11.2025 under Section 66(2) of the PMLA. Relying upon the principles stated in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, the Court held that the absence of a pre-registered criminal case did not, in the circumstances, render the exercise of Section 5 jurisdiction ex facie without authority. The Court also held that the challenge concerning advertisements directed at users outside India involved disputed questions concerning quantification of proceeds of crime and was more appropriately examinable through the statutory remedies. The writ petition and pending applications were accordingly dismissed, while all rights and contentions were left open before the Adjudicating Authority and in further proceedings.
