Full Text
Date of Decision: 27.07.2026
RAJESH GOYAL .....Appellant
Through: Mr.Anuj Chauhan, Ms.Geetika Verma, Mr.Harsh Kumar &
Mr.Sunil Yadav, Advs.
Through: Mr.Vivek Gurnani, Panel Counsel for ED.
MAYANK GOYAL .....Appellant
Through: Ms.Surabhi Vaya & Mr.Aditya Mishra, Advs.
Through: Mr.Vivek Gurnani, Panel Counsel for ED.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. These appeals have been filed challenging the order dated 05.12.2024 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal in FPA-PMLA- 2001/DLI/2024 (in MISC.
APPEAL (PMLA) 11/2025) and in FPA- PMLA-2000/DLI/2024 (in MISC.
APPEAL (PMLA) 12/2025).
2. The above appeals had been filed by the appellants, challenging the order dated 25.09.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority, whereby the Miscellaneous Application filed by the appellants to seek a copy of the ‘reasons to believe’ recorded by the Enforcement Directorate (in short, ‘ED’) under Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short, the ‘PMLA Act’), had been dismissed.
3. The respondent, in its reply, has now placed on record a copy of the order dated 27.12.2024, whereby the Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the retention of the digital devices and documents/records seized during the searches conducted on 18.07.2024, 19.07.2024, 20.07.2024, and 21.07.2024.
4. We are informed that the appellants have filed appeals challenging the said order before the learned Appellate Tribunal under Section 26 of the PMLA Act. The said appeals are pending adjudication before the learned Appellate Tribunal.
5. In such appeals, the appellants can raise all pleas, including the effect of non-supply of the ‘reasons to believe’ recorded by the ED under Section 17(1) of the PMLA Act.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants, however, insists that this issue must be decided by this Court in light of the judgment of this Court in J.K. Tyre and Industries Ltd. v. Directorate of Enforcement and other connected matters, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4836, and taking into view the fact that, by the Impugned Order, the learned Appellate Tribunal has already rejected the plea of the appellants for supply of the ‘reasons to believe’ recorded under Section 17(1) of the PMLA Act. The learned counsel for the appellant in MISC.
APPEAL (PMLA) 12/2025 additionally submits that the appellant in the said appeal is not even named in the ECIR for the predicate offence.
7. We are not inclined to do so, as it would open multiple forums where various parts of the same order would stand to be challenged.
8. The appellants can raise all these pleas before the learned Appellate Tribunal. We only clarify that if above plea is taken, the learned Appellate Tribunal shall adjudicate the same remaining uninfluenced by its order dated 05.12.2024. We also clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claims of the parties on the above issues.
9. The present appeals, along with their respective pending applications, are disposed of in the above terms.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J RAVINDER DUDEJA, J JULY 27, 2026/rv/as