In a detailed judgment pronounced on November 3, 2025, Justice Sachin Datta of the Delhi High Court dismissed multiple petitions filed by Krrish Realtech Pvt Ltd and its promoter Amit Katyal challenging the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) provisional attachment orders under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. The court held that the company must first pursue its remedy before the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the PMLA instead of invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
Background
The real estate group had approached the court seeking to set aside three provisional attachment orders - PAO No. 6/2024, PAO No. 11/2024, and PAO No. 2/2025 - through which the ED attached lands, sale proceeds, and assets allegedly worth ₹503 crore.
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Vikas Pahwa, representing the petitioners, argued that the attachments were "illegal, arbitrary and in complete disregard” of Supreme Court directions that ordered status quo regarding the possession of certain plots under dispute. The petitioners also highlighted that several predicate FIRs, which formed the basis of the money-laundering case, had either been quashed or closed by competent courts.
They further pointed out that the Adjudicating Authority confirming the attachments was improperly constituted, since the confirmation orders were signed by a single member, contrary to the three-member requirement laid down in the PMLA.
Court's Observations
After a lengthy hearing attended by a full battery of lawyers on both sides, Justice Datta noted that two of the three provisional attachment orders had already been confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority, and appeals were pending before the Appellate Tribunal. The third matter’s judgment, he noted, had already been reserved.
The bench observed, "When a statute creates a complete mechanism for adjudication and appeal, a writ court should not ordinarily interfere. The petitioners have a remedy available under Section 26 of the PMLA," the order recorded.
The court cited multiple precedents - including Gold Croft Properties Pvt Ltd v. ED (2023), Dr. U.S. Awasthi v. Adjudicating Authority PMLA (2023), and Adventure Island Ltd v. ED (2024) - reiterating that a constitutional court’s extraordinary jurisdiction is not meant to bypass a special statutory remedy.
Justice Datta remarked that issues such as alleged violation of Supreme Court status quo orders, questions about the validity of predicate offences, and the composition of the Adjudicating Authority can all be adequately examined by the Appellate Tribunal.
On the petitioner’s claim that the ED had concealed facts regarding the closure of FIRs, the court said such contested factual issues could not be resolved in writ proceedings.
Decision
Dismissing the petitions, the bench directed that all pleas raised by Krrish Realtech and Amit Katyal be placed before the PMLA Appellate Tribunal, which was requested to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months.
The judgment ended with a clear reminder of judicial discipline in financial crime litigation:
"When the law provides a detailed redressal structure, parties must not bypass it by approaching writ courts at the first instance."
With that, the Delhi High Court disposed of the petitions without expressing any opinion on merits, leaving the fate of the ₹503-crore attachments to be decided by the specialized tribunal.
