The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on Wednesday delivered a detailed ruling in a set of three connected appeals, finally settling a long-debated question under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). After nearly an hour of arguments that swung between statutory interpretation and practical consequences, the bench held that the PMLA Appellate Tribunal does have the power to remand matters back to the Adjudicating Authority-something the appellants had strongly disputed.
Background
The case traces its origin to allegations that appellant Zahoor Ahmad Shah had acted as a conduit for funds allegedly coming from Pakistan and the Pakistan High Commission. According to the NIA’s findings, around ₹1.64 crore had been received and distributed during 2015–16, allegedly to persons involved in separatist activities.
Read also: Assam High Court Flags Gaps in Police Recruitment Policy for Transgender Applicants, Seeks Clarity
One of the attached properties-a basement and ground floor in DLF Phase-II, Gurgaon-belonged to Zahoor’s wife, Sarwa Zahoor, who repeatedly argued that she had no link to any FIR, ECIR, or complaint.
In 2019, the Enforcement Directorate issued a provisional attachment, followed by confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority. When the couple appealed, the Appellate Tribunal set aside the confirmation but remanded the case for a fresh hearing, instructing authorities to provide proper “reasons to believe.” This remand became the central point of challenge before the High Court.
Court’s Observations
During arguments, senior advocate R.A. Jan insisted that the Tribunal had “no jurisdiction at all” to remand matters, because Section 26 of PMLA only mentions confirming, modifying, or setting aside orders. “When Parliament didn’t give this power, how can the Tribunal assume it?” he remarked inside the courtroom.
Read also: Supreme Court Flags Serious Concerns Over Police Conduct in Madhya Pradesh Case, Seeks Affidavits
The bench, however, did not seem persuaded. Justice Sanjeev Kumar noted that the phrase “pass such orders as it thinks fit” has a “wide amplitude” and cannot be read narrowly. At one point, the court observed, “If the Tribunal can set aside an order, it must be able to give effect to that setting aside. Otherwise, justice becomes illusory.”
They relied on several Supreme Court rulings, including Umesh Dhaimode and Assam Travels Shipping Service, both of which acknowledged that appellate bodies with authority to annul or modify orders inherently possess the power to remand.
The bench also addressed another argument: that the 180-day life of a provisional attachment had expired, making the entire process futile. On this, the court was firm. Referring to earlier Supreme Court guidance, Justice Kumar remarked that adjudication “does not evaporate merely because a provisional attachment ends by efflux of time.” Proceeding must continue to their “logical end.”
Read also: Gujarat High Court Rejects State’s Appeal, Says Temple-Visit Quarrel Cannot Be Treated as Cruelty
Decision
Finding “no merit whatsoever” in the appeals, the High Court dismissed all three matters. The judges upheld the Appellate Tribunal’s 2024 order, clearing the way for the Adjudicating Authority to rehear the case from the stage where the earlier confirmation order was issued.
With this, interim protections stood vacated, and the couples’ challenge to the remand power failed entirely. The linked appeals-RFA(OS) 2/2025 and RFA(OS) 3/2025-were disposed of based on the same reasoning.
Case Title: Sarwa Zahoor & Anr. vs. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement & Anr.
Case No.: RFA (OS) No. 1/2025, 2/2025, 3/2025
Case Type: Regular First Appeal (Original Side) under PMLA
Decision Date: 20 November 2025