SC Appreciates ED's Efforts in Restoring Attached Properties to Protect Innocent & Genuine Home Buyers

The decision follows an amicable settlement between the parties pursuant to the Supreme Court’s earlier orders dated September 11 and 18, 2025. The case concerned Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) No. 05/2019 dated April 2, 2019, passed against the Corporate Debtor under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

The Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe partially set aside the PAO, directing that the attached properties be restored to the Successful Resolution Applicant (SRA), who had stepped into the shoes of the Corporate Debtor solely to protect the interests of innocent home buyers who had subsequently acquired the units.

The Court clarified that this restitution was being ordered without considering the merits or rival contentions of the parties.

The Bench noted that while the provisional attachment would continue in respect of 11 units in the RRV project identified in the DoE’s affidavit dated October 7, 2025, the rights of home buyers under their respective “Agreements to Sell” and payments amounting to Rs. 7,82,91,589 (out of a total consideration of Rs. 8,65,00,000) would remain attached under PMLA provisions.

Further, the Court observed that in accordance with Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), the name of the Corporate Debtor would be removed from the list of accused in the third Supplementary Prosecution Complaint filed on February 27, 2025, in ECIR No. JPZO/01/2016.

Additionally, the Court substituted the original prayer for confiscation of the Corporate Debtor’s entire properties with a targeted confiscation limited to the 11 units identified in the DoE’s affidavit, while allowing prosecution of the erstwhile directors, persons in control, conspirators, or abettors.

The Court emphasized that the benefit under Section 32A of IBC was conditional. The SRA should neither be connected to the former directors of the Corporate Debtor nor be a beneficiary of proceeds of crime. Should ongoing investigations by the DoE reveal otherwise, appropriate steps, including questioning of the resolution plan, may be taken in accordance with law.

The Supreme Court also closed the challenge by DoE to the approval of the Resolution Plan by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai. Consequently, the DoE has no right or lien over the properties of the Corporate Debtor, except for the 11 units referenced in its affidavit. This ensures that the Resolution Plan can now be implemented in accordance with law, facilitating registration of sale deeds for the affected home buyers.

Moreover, the Court directed the appellant(s) to withdraw the pending appeal before the PMLA Tribunal (FPA-PMLA-3275/JP/2019), rendering the application under Section 8(8) in Criminal Case No. 33 of 2023 before Special Court, PMLA, Jaipur infructuous.

The Court made it clear that the order is passed on the peculiar facts of the case, with the consent of the parties under the second proviso to sub-Section (8) of Section 8 of PMLA, and should not be treated as a precedent. Questions of law arising from this case remain open for consideration in future matters.

"Lastly, we place on record our appreciation for the efforts made by the learned counsel for the parties and the DoE in restoring the attached properties to secure the interests of genuine and innocent home buyers," the Bench concluded.