Satyam Caterers Pvt Limited vs Directorate Of Enforcement

$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 14.05.2026

+ MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 14/2026
SATYAM CATERERS PVT LIMITED .....Appellant
Through: Mr.Gautam Khazanchi &
Mr.Vaibhav Dubey, Advs.

versus
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
.....Respondent
Through: Mr.Rahul Tyagi, SC for ED
with Ms.Priya Rai, Mr.Jatin,
ASPP & Mr.Amit Rohil, Advs.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
1. This appeal has been filed under Section 42 of the Prevention of
Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”), challenging the order dated
02.12.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA
in MP-PMLA-1715/DLI/2025 (Direction) in FPA-PMLA-
722/DLI/2025.
2. The said appeal in turn has been filed by the appellant
challenging the order dated 11.03.2025 passed by the Adjudicating
Authority in OC No. 993/2018, titled ED v. M/s RK Associates &
Hoteliers Pvt. Ltd. , inter alia , quantifying the proceeds of crime qua
the appellant as Rs.3,08,30,600/-. Prior thereto, an amount of
Signature Not Verified
MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 14/2026 Page 1 of 4

Digitally Signed
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:18.05.2026
11:27:59

Rs.4,62,45,900/- had been recovered from the bank account of the
appellant as proceeds of crime pursuant to the order dated 03.12.2018
passed by the learned Adjudicating Authority in the above OC.
3. The appellant, while challenging the order dated 11.03.2025
before the learned Appellate Tribunal, also prayed, by way of the
above-mentioned application, that the excess amount recovered from
the appellant, that is, of Rs.1,54,15,300/-, be directed to be released by
the respondent to the appellant. The impugned order has been passed
on the said application.
4. The learned Tribunal has disallowed the above prayer of the
appellant, only on the ground that the respondent has also challenged
the order dated 11.03.2025 passed by the learned Adjudicating
Authority by way of a separate appeal before the learned Tribunal, and
that granting relief to the appellant would render the appeal filed by
the respondent infructuous.
5. We cannot accept the above reasoning of the learned Tribunal.
The merits of the appeal filed by the respondent, even prima facie ,
have not been considered in the impugned order. In fact, the same
could not be adjudicated in the appeal filed by the appellant herein,
and has not been adjudicated at all in the impugned order, which has
been passed on an application and on an appeal filed by the appellant.
6. The appellant had partly succeeded before the Adjudicating
Authority in the form of a reduction of the alleged proceeds of crime.
The appellant was, therefore, entitled to the consequential relief of
release of the amount, subject to any order to the contrary being
passed in the appeal/application filed by the respondent. Such is not
Signature Not Verified
MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 14/2026 Page 2 of 4

Digitally Signed
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:18.05.2026
11:27:59

the case here.
7. Whether the appeal filed by the respondent challenging the
reduction in the quantification of proceeds of crime by the
Adjudicating Authority was prima facie meritorious or not has to be
determined in the appeal filed by the respondent qua the reduced
amount.
8. In the impugned order, we do not find any consideration of the
prima facie merits of the respondent’s appeal. In fact, that appeal or
any application therein for the said relief, was not even before the
learned Tribunal when the impugned order was passed. The impugned
order, therefore, cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.
9. In fairness, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that
the appellant is willing to secure the interest of the respondent for the
differential amount of Rs.1,54,15,300/- by way of a bank guarantee till
such time as the application filed by the respondent in its appeal is not
considered by the learned Tribunal.
10. Accordingly, we direct the respondent to release the amount of
Rs.1,54,15,300/- to the appellant, subject to the appellant furnishing a
bank guarantee of an equivalent amount to the respondent, which shall
be subject to the outcome of the application/appeal filed by the
respondent and pending adjudication before the learned Tribunal.
11. As far as the remaining amount of Rs.3,08,30,600/-, which has
been adjudicated by the Adjudicating Authority as proceeds of crime,
is concerned, the same shall be kept in a fixed deposit and shall
remain subject to the outcome of the appeals filed by the parties
herein.
Signature Not Verified
MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 14/2026 Page 3 of 4

Digitally Signed
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:18.05.2026
11:27:59

12. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits
of the appeal filed by either of the parties or the application for interim
stay filed therein.
13. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.


NAVIN CHAWLA, J


RAVINDER DUDEJA, J
MAY 14, 2026/ rv/as
Signature Not Verified
MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 14/2026 Page 4 of 4

Digitally Signed
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:18.05.2026
11:27:59