Introduction
The Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in the case of Union of Bank of India v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement[i], ruled that revision petitions are maintainable in cases where an order for confiscation of property is passed under s. 8(7) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’).
Factual Background
The Union of Bank of India (‘petitioner’) granted credit facilities to ABW Infrastructure Ltd. As a result, the property at 22 Farmhouse Land in Village Rajokri Tehsil, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, was mortgaged to the petitioner Bank.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) filed a criminal complaint against Atul Bansal, Sonal Bansal, ABW Infrastructure Ltd, and its group companies for allegedly purchasing acres of land under false names and concealing proceeds of crime related to the sale of licenses derived by ABW Group in connivance with Government officers.
As a result, the Special Judge, PMLA (Haryana) at Panchkula, in Directorate of Enforcement v. Atul Bansal & Ors.[ii], passed an order confiscating the above-mortgaged property under s. 8(7) of the PMLA.
Hence, the petitioner filed the present petition under s. 47 of the PMLA, read with s. 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
Issues
Whether the order passed by the Special Judge, PMLA, Panchkula is an interlocutory order or not?
Whether a revision petition is maintainable against such an order?
Held
The Court observed that an order for confiscation of property determines the rights of interim custody until the trial is concluded, so it is not an interlocutory order.
Hence, the High Court held that the revision petition filed by the petitioner in the present case was maintainable.
The High Court referred to s. 8 of the PMLA alongside rs. 3 and 3A of the Prevention of Money Laundering (Restoration of Confiscated Property) Rules, 2016 (‘PMLA Rules’), called out the difference between the two in their applicability. While r. 3 of the PMLA Rules applies only to cases under s. 8(5) of the PMLA, where on the conclusion of the trial, the offence of money laundering is made out, and an order of confiscation of property is passed, r. 3A of the PMLA Rules applies where the charges have been framed, and an application is made to restore the attached property.
The Court also reiterated that since an interlocutory order is temporary in nature and does not determine the rights of the parties, revision petitions are not applicable to such orders. However, in the present case, the confiscation order was held to be final in nature.
Our Analysis
The High Court's decision established that the order related to the confiscation of property under s. 8(7) of the PMLA is not interlocutory as it affects the substantive rights of the parties. Relying on various judicial precedents, the Court provided a pathway for redress via revision petitions in property confiscation cases under the PMLA.
This ruling creates a precedent that will impact many subsequent cases. It may open the door for further orders under the PMLA regarding the confiscation of property to be challenged by revision petitions. Further, this ruling can also be seen as striking a balance between ensuring swift action against money laundering and protecting the rights of the accused.
End Notes
[i] CRR-476-2024 (O&M) dated 30.07.2024.
[ii] COMA/35/2018.
Authored by Ritik Kumar Jha, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinions.
AUTHORED BY
More Insights
25-08-2026
12
min read
A Game of Treasure Hunt: Service of GST Notices and Orders under S. 169 of the CGST Act and the Emerging Split Among High Courts
Luxmi Traders addresses a fundamental question in GST adjudication: can a notice or order be treated as duly served merely because it is uploaded on the Common Portal? The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that portal-only service, absent the requisite statutory and notified basis, cannot by itself defeat a taxpayer’s remedies. With Madras and Allahabad adopting different approaches and Delhi subsequently applying Luxmi Traders, the issue reflects a significant divergence in judicial approach awaiting authoritative resolution.
24-07-2026
10
min read
‘Shylockian’ Lending is ‘Squeezing of Blood’: NCLT Moves Beyond Debt & Default to Reject a Section 7 Application
In a rare departure from the conventional debt-and-default enquiry under section 7 of the IBC, the NCLT, Kochi Bench rejected the financial creditors' petition after characterizing the underlying arrangement as a ‘Shylockian system’ of lending. This court ruling discusses Shylockian lending and examines the strength of the Tribunal's focus on the economic substance of the transaction against established legal principles governing admission under section 7 of the IBC.
10-07-2026
7
min read
Faceless Reassessment after S. 147A: What the Supreme Court Did – and Did Not – Decide
The Supreme Court's decision in Tej Pratap Singh does not settle the JAO–FAO controversy. Following Parliament's retrospective insertion of s. 147A, it remands the issue to the High Courts for fresh consideration. Faceless reassessment was never merely about moving tax files from paper to portal; it fundamentally changed the statutory authority responsible for communicating with the taxpayer, examining the record, drafting the order and completing the assessment. The real question now is how far a retrospective legislative clarification can go.