Panel Counsel, Mr. Kartik Sabharwal, Mr. Kanishk Maurya and Mr. Satyam, Advocate v. M/S VIKAS WSP LTD ORS

Judgment

1. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel, Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Panel Counsel, Mr. Kartik Sabharwal, Mr. Kanishk and Mr. Satyam, Maurya Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR J U D G M E N T HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

1. By the present Judgment, we intend to dispose of two proceedings, one being a Letters Patent Appeal against the Judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court and another being a Writ Petition preferred against a Provisional Attachment Order1. 1 PAO Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:25.09.2025 14:40:47 LPA 362/2020 & W.P.(CRL) 86/2022 Page 2 of 53

2. The Letters Patent Appeal, being LPA 362/2020, has been filed by the Directorate of Enforcement2 under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, assailing the Judgment dated 18.11.2020 3 passed by the learned Single Judge. By the said judgment, the learned Single Judge allowed W.P.(C) No. 3551/2020 filed by the Respondents herein and, consequently, set aside the Notice/ Summons dated 26.05.2020 issued by the learned Adjudicating Authority in Original Complaint No. 1228/2019 dated 05.12.2019. The learned Single Judge has held that, the said Notice/ Summons was beyond the period of 180 days, as the Prevention of Money prescribed under Section 5(3) of Laundering Act, 20024, from the date of the PAO dated 13.11.2019 and thereby, had expired without any order being passed by the learned Adjudicating Authority under Section 8(3) of the PMLA. 3. The Writ Petition, being W.P.(CRL) 86/2022, challenges, inter alia, PAO No. 6/2021 dated 01.12.2021 passed by the ED. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Petitioners therein filed an application, being CRL.M.A. 13185/2022, seeking quashing of the aforesaid PAO. The grounds urged in support of the application were, in essence, similar to those which had constituted the foundation of the Impugned Judgment dated 18.11.2020, against which LPA 362/2020 has been filed by the ED. 4. Shorn of unnecessary details, as asserted by the Appellants in LPA 362/2020 and the Petitioners in W.P.(CRL) 86/2022, the sole question arising for consideration in the present matters, is whether, in light of COVID-19 pandemic, the orders passed by the Hon‘ble 2 ED 3 Impugned Judgment dated 18.11.2020 4 PMLA Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:25.09.2025 14:40:47 LPA 362/2020 & W.P.(CRL) 86/2022 Page 3 of 53 Supreme Court in In re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation5, extending limitation periods, would also apply to proceedings under Section 5 of the PMLA, which mandates that a provisional attachment must be confirmed within a maximum period of 180 days by the learned Adjudicating Authority under Section 8(3) of the PMLA. 5. The submissions advanced by learned counsel for both sides, in both matters, were confined to the aforesaid question. Accordingly, we propose to examine the said issue and dispose of both, the Appeal and the Writ Petition, by this Judgment. For the sake of uniformity and convenience, we shall hereinafter refer to the Government/ Directorate of Enforcement as ―ED‖, and the opposite parties in both proceedings collectively as the ―private parties‖. SUBMISSIONS OF THE ED: 6. Learned special counsel for the ED, Mr. Zoheb Hossain, would submit that the contention of the private parties that the PAO ceased to have effect after 180 days is legally unsustainable, because the Hon‘ble Supreme Court, through suo motu orders, had extended and later excluded limitation periods in respect of all proceedings under both general and special laws, including quasi-judicial proceedings, and these extensions squarely apply to proceedings under the PMLA, which interpretation has also been consistently affirmed by several High Courts, including the Telangana High Court in Hygro Chemicals Pharmtek (P) Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr6. 7. He would contend that the private parties were themselves responsible for the repeated delays in the adjudication proceedings, as they initially sought adjournments before the learned Adjudicating 5 Suo Motu W.P. (C) No. 3/2020 6 2023 SCC OnLine TS 4457 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:25.09.2025 14:40:47 LPA 362/2020 & W.P.(CRL) 86/2022 Page 4 of 53 Authority instead of filing replies to the show-cause notice, which resulted in multiple postponements, and subsequently, the proceedings could not progress due to the nationwide lockdown. Relying on the principle laid down in Kusheshwar Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar7, namely, that a wrongdoer cannot take advantage of his own wrong, he would further argue that the private parties, having themselves caused the delay, cannot now claim that the provisional attachment automatically lapsed after 180 days. 8. Counsel for the ED would seek to distinguish the Judgment of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in S. Kasi vs State8, which has been relied upon by the learned Single Judge and the private parties, by submitting that it dealt with default bail and the question of personal liberty under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 9 , whereas attachment of property under the PMLA cannot be equated with deprivation of personal liberty. 9. He would submit that since the complaint was filed within the prescribed period and the delay thereafter arose only due to restrictions imposed during Covid-19, the attachment continued to remain valid under the extended limitation declared by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court. 10. He would further contend that the reliance of the learned Single Judge on the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020 10, at paragraph 32 of the Impugned Judgment dated 18.11.2020 is misplaced, because the Ordinance did not list the PMLA as one of the specified Acts, but the Supreme