Ddpl Global Infrastructure Private Limited & Anr. vs Directorate Of Enforcement
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~25 to 27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8406/2022, CM APPL. 25296/2022 & CM APPL.
71689/2025
Date of Decision: 28.04.2026
IN THE MATTERS OF:
DDPL GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED &
ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Nitesh Jain, Mr. Adrish
Majumder, Mr. Hridhay Khurana, Mr.
Shreedhar Kale and Mr. Somit Kumar
Singh, Advs.
versus
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT .....Respondent
Through: Mr Anupam S Sharrma, Ms Harpreet
Kalsi, Mr Vashisht Rao, Ms Amisha
P Dash, Mr Abhiyant Singh, Mr
Mayank Tyagi, Advs.
Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel
with Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Mr. Pranjal
Tripathi,Ms. Tanvi Jain and Mr.
Satyam, Advs.
26
+ W.P.(C) 12276/2022, CM APPL. 36834/2022, CM APPL.
37309/2022, CM APPL. 14866/2023 & CM APPL. 71598/2025
CHANDRA PRAKASH KHANDELWAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Nitesh Jain, Mr. Adrish
Majumder, Mr. Hridhay Khurana, Mr.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
19:46:40
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Shreedhar Kale and Mr. Somit Kumar
Singh, Advs.
versus
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT .....Respondent
Through: Mr Anupam S Sharrma, Ms Harpreet
Kalsi, Mr Vashisht Rao, Ms Amisha
P Dash, Mr Abhiyant Singh, Mr
Mayank Tyagi, Advs.
Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel
with Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Mr. Pranjal
Tripathi,Ms. Tanvi Jain and Mr.
Satyam, Advs.
27
+ W.P.(C) 12865/2022, CM APPL. 39125/2022 & CM APPL.
71595/2025
SKITTISH REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepesh Aneja, Adv.
versus
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT .....Respondent
Through: Mr Anupam S Sharrma, Ms Harpreet
Kalsi , Mr Vashisht Rao, Ms Amisha
P Dash, Mr Abhiyant Singh, Mr
Mayank Tyagi, Advs.
Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel
with Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Mr. Pranjal
Tripathi,Ms. Tanvi Jain and Mr.
Satyam, Advs.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
19:46:40
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
J U D G E M E N T
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
CM. APPL. 71689/2025 in W.P.(C) 8406/2022 (On Behalf of The
Respondent Seeking Disposal of the Writ Petition)
CM. APPL. 71598/2025 in W.P.(C) 12276/2022 (On Behalf of The
Respondent Seeking Disposal of the Writ Petition)
CM. APPL. 71595/2025 in W.P.(C) 12865/2022 (On Behalf of The
Respondent Seeking Disposal of the Writ Petition)
1. W.P.(C) 8406/2022 has arisen out of a provisional attachment order
dated 19.05.2022 issued by Directorate of Enforcement (“ ED ”) whereas,
W.P.(C) 12276/2022 and W.P.(C) 12865/2022 have arisen out of common
attachment order dated 19.08.2022 (collectively “ Impugned Orders ”).
2. In W.P.(C) 8406/2022, vide order dated 26.05.2022, this Court stayed
the operation of the order impugned therein; similar orders were passed in
the other two writ petitions as well. It appears that against the interim order
1
dated 26.05.2022 passed by this Court, a Special Leave Petition (Civil) was
filed by the ED.
3. The Supreme Court vide order dated 21.02.2023 disposed of the SLP,
granting liberty to the parties to complete the pleadings and to decide the
writ petitions pending before the Court on their own merit in accordance
with law without being influenced by any of the observations made in the
interim order, which was challenged before the Supreme Court. Since then
the parties have completed their pleadings, and the matter, thereafter, has
remained pending for consideration before this Court.
1
Diary No.39037/2022
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
19:46:40
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
2
4. The present set of applications have been filed by the respondent-
Directorate of Enforcement (“ ED ”), seeking the disposal of the respective
writ petitions by releasing and restoring the properties, which are the subject
matter of the Impugned Orders, to the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee
(“ Lodha Committee ”), in accordance with the scheme of restitution
envisaged under Section 8(8) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act,
2002 (“ PMLA ”). The relief clause in the said application reads as under:
“ a. Dispose of the present writ petition in view of the undertaking given by
the respondent/applicant - Directorate of Enforcement, to restore the
properties attached under the Provisional Attachment Orders to the Justice
R.M. Lodha Committee, in accordance with the scheme of restitution
envisaged under Section 8(8) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act,
2002 (PMLA);
b. Pass any other appropriate Order/directions which this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. ”
5. During the course of the hearing, the Court was of the prima facie
view that the Said Applications deserve to be allowed. The respective
petitioners, also, have not, in actuality, objected to the core relief made in
the said applications. It is in fact, the very case of the petitioners that the
matter deserves to be relegated to the Lodha Committee. The only dispute
between the party is as to the stage from which the aforesaid relegation is to
take place. Whether it is to take place after the Impugned Orders are set
aside, or from the stage it presently is i.e., with the Impugned Orders
standing and holding their field.
6. Primarily, owing to the scheme of the PMLA, when resorted to
without consultation with the Lodha Committee, being in stark contrast with
2
CM Appl. Nos. 71689/2025, 71598/2025 and 7195/2025 (“ Said Applications ”).
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
19:46:40
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
the framework devised by the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the
Constitution through in its orders dated 02.02.2016 and 06.10.2021; and
because the Impugned Orders have served their purpose, the Court, in order
to prevent the continued application of the PMLA‟s complete code, deems it
fit to set aside the Impugned Orders, and relegate the present lis to the Lodha
Committee. Before adverting to the reasoning, the submissions of the parties
may be taken note of.
7. During the course of submissions, Mr. Dayan Krishnan in W.P.(C)
8406/2022, W.P.(C) 12276/2022 and Mr. Deepesh Aneja, learned counsel
who appears in W.P.(C) 12865/2022 contended that the action of the ED is
de hors the subsisting directions passed by the Supreme Court in its orders
dated 02.02.2016 and 06.10.2021. Both these orders have been extensively
read over to emphasise that the Supreme Court has already placed a
mechanism to deal with the affairs of PACL Ltd. (“ PACL ”).
8. It is pointed out that under the peculiar facts concerning the affairs of
PACL and the alleged fraud with the investors, the Supreme Court ordered
the appointment of Mr. Justice (Retd.) R. M. Lodha, former Chief Justice of
3
India as a Chairman of the Committee while granting liberty to the
Chairman to appoint such experts or other persons as he might think it
necessary in consultation with the SEBI so as to enable committee to sell the
land and pay to the investor in a manner that might be decided by the said
committee.
9. Thereafter, it is the submission of Mr. Krishnan that various directions
3
Referred to in this Judgement as the “ Lodha Committee ”.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
19:46:40
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
have been issued by the Supreme Court from time to time. It, however, is
highlighted by referring to the order dated 06.10.2021, passed by the
Supreme Court that pursuant to certain attachments effected by SEBI,
petitions were entertained by Securities Appellate Tribunal („ SAT ‟) and the
attachment orders passed by the SEBI were interdicted. The Supreme Court
vide order dated 06.10.2021 set aside the order passed by the SAT and
emphasised that SEBI was entrusted with certain functions in pursuance of
the directions issued by the Court under Article 142 of the Constitution.
10. It is highlighted that the Supreme Court emphasised that such a
direction was necessary to protect the interest of the investors impacted by
the collective acts of defrauding done by PACL and its directors, promoters,
group companies and related persons and investors.
11. Mr. Krishnan also points out that the action which was taken by SEBI
4
was pursuant to a communication made by the ED dated 01.09.2016. He
thus contends that when the ED was in consultation with, and cognizant of,
the special mechanism of the Lodha Committee, it was not incumbent upon
the ED to have proceeded to pass a provisional attachment order.
12. Mr. Krishanan then also pointed out from the record that even after
passing the interim directions by this Court, the ED has further entered into
correspondence with the Lodha Committee. This, according to him,
reinforces that the understanding of the ED as well as all other stakeholders
was to act in tandem with the Lodha Committee in order to fulfil the
mandate of the orders passed by the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the
4
(Annexure P-20).
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
19:46:40
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Constitution. In sum and substance, Mr. Krishnan pointed out that the action
of the ED is in derogation of the mechanism which has been evolved by the
Supreme Court in exercise of Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
13. The submissions are strongly opposed by Mr. Anupam S Sharrma and
Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned counsel appearing for the ED. They contend
that the action of the ED is fully in accordance with law. The same cannot
be termed as illegal or without jurisdiction. They contend that the power of
the ED is not curtailed by way of the directions passed by the Supreme
Court. They submit that the agency has to act strictly in accordance with the
mandate of the provisions of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002
(“ PMLA ”), which fully empowers the ED to undertake such an exercise. It
is further their submission that the act of the respondent in handing over the
attached properties to the Lodha Committee would amount to restitution
under Section 8(8) of the PMLA.
14. At the very outset it may be considered that while there is no cavil
with the settled position that statutory powers cannot be curtailed by orders
of Court, the special scheme of the Supreme Court demands a modified
application of the powers conferred upon the ED under the PMLA. The
order dated 06.10.2021 of the Supreme Cout in Subrata Bhattacharya v.
5
SEBI , in the context of the SEBI‟s statutory powers similarly notes as
under:
“ 4.The order dated 2 February 2016 makes it abundant clear that SEBI
was entrusted with certain functions in pursuance of the directions issued
by this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution. This was in order to
protect the interests of the investors impacted by collective acts of
5
Civil Appeal No. 13391/2015.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
19:46:40
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
defrauding them by PACL and its Directors, promoters, group companies
and related persons and entities. The functions which SEBI has been
called upon to perform emanate from the directions of this Court.
Independently, SEBI, as a statutory body under the Securities and Exchange
Board of India Act 19924, is invested with statutory duties, obligations and
functions, but, it needs to be emphasized that the functions which are
being discharged by SEBI are in the context of an entrustment by this
Court in the interests of the body of investors . This is also evident from the
fact that besides the Chairperson of the Committee, the other members of
the Committee include: (i) the Whole Time Member, SEBI; (ii) the Executive
Director, SEBI; and (iii) the General Manager, SEBI, who is to act as a
Nodal Officer cum Secretary of the Committee. As a matter of fact, the
injunction issued by this Court on 2 May 2016, restraining any other civil
authority or forum from entertaining any suit, proceeding or claim
pertaining to PACL or its directors, promoters, group entities, group
companies, individuals, etc., is in order to ensure that proceedings are not
instituted before any other forum to overreach or defeat the assumption of
jurisdiction by this Court... ”
[Emphasis Supplied]
15. It is noteworthy to consider that the scheme of the PMLA, as evinced
from Sections 5, 8, 9, ends the civil law aspect of PMLA proceedings by
vesting the attached and subsequently confiscated properties absolutely in
the Central Government free from all encumbrances. The insistence of ED
to seek for a deemed restitution under Section 8(8) also seems to be
misplaced. For clarity, the said provision reads as under:
“ (8) Where a property stands confiscated to the Central Government under
sub-section (5), the Special Court, in such manner as may be prescribed,
may also direct the Central Government to restore such confiscated
property or part thereof of a claimant with a legitimate interest in the
property, who may have suffered a quantifiable loss as a result of the
offence of money laundering: Provided that the Special Court shall not
consider such claim unless it is satisfied that the claimant has acted in good
faith and has suffered the loss despite having taken all reasonable
precautions and is not involved in the offence of money-laundering.
Provided that the Special Court shall not consider such claim unless it is
satisfied that the claimant has acted in good faith and has suffered the loss
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
19:46:40
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
despite having taken all reasonable precautions and is not involved in the
offence of money-laundering:
Provided further that the Special Court may, if it thinks fit, consider the
claim of the claimant for the purposes of restoration of such properties
during the trial of the case in such manner as may be prescribed. ”
16. The rule framed in furtherance of the second proviso to Section 8(8) is
found in Rule 3A of the Prevention of Money-laundering (Restoration of
Confiscated Property) Rules, 2016 (“ Confiscation Rules ”) which reads as
under:
“ 3A. Manner of restoration of property during trial.
(1) The Special Court, after framing of the charge under section 4 of the
Act, on the basis of an application moved for restoration of a property
attached under sub-section (1) of section 5, or, seized or frozen under
section 17 or section 18 of the Act prior to confiscation, if it thinks fit, may,
for the purposes of the second proviso to sub-section (8) of section 8 of the
Act, cause to be published a notice in two daily newspapers, one in English
language and one in vernacular language, having sufficient circulation in
the locality where such property is situated calling upon the claimants, who
claim to have a legitimate interest in such property or part thereof, to
submit and establish their claims, if any, for obtaining restoration of such
property or part thereof.
(2) When the property referred to in sub-rule (1) is insufficient to meet the
loss suffered by the claimant as a result of the offence of money-laundering,
the Special Court, as it thinks fit, may pass an order of restoration of
property directing the Central Government, if necessary, to auction such
property and disburse on a pro-rata basis in accordance with the share of
loss suffered by each claimant and may give custody thereof to such
claimant on his executing a bond undertaking to produce such restored
property before the Special Court as and when required for the purposes of
sub-section (5) or sub-section (6) or sub-section (7) of section 8 of the Act.
(3) No claimant shall be entitled to claim restoration of the property
referred in sub-rule (1) before the Special Court beyond thirty days from the
date of publication of the notice referred to in that sub-rule:
Provided that the Special Court may entertain any claim not exceeding
further thirty days, upon the satisfaction that the claimant was prevented by
sufficient cause.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
19:46:40
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
(4) No restoration order shall be passed by the Special Court under this
rule, without giving an opportunity of being heard to the owner of the
property referred to in sub-rule (1) or in the event of his death, the legal
representatives of such person or official assignee or official receiver, as
the case may be. ”
17. The restitution route provided for under Section 8(8) is an exception
and not the rule. A property, under Section 5 of the PMLA, is provisionally
attached with the intent of confiscating and vesting it with the Central Govt.
It is only when the conditions stipulated under Section 8(8) and Rule 3A of
the Confiscation Rules are met that the Special Court can direct the release
of properties. This release, during trial, as per sub-rule (1) of Rule 3A, takes
place after the framing of the charge under Section 4 of the Act, and post a
publication-notice is caused to be made, by the Special Court, in two daily
newspapers. Then, the Special Court upon being satisfied of the legitimate
interests of a claimant, can order for the release of such a property.
18. It be noted that the Special Court is distinct from the agency which is
the ED. It is the Special Court‟s satisfaction that could warrant a release
under Section 8(8) and Rule 3A of the Confiscation Rules. The fact that
those recoveries were directed to and retained by the Lodha Committee, for
disbursement to investors, is an unambiguous acknowledgment by the ED
that the Supreme Court scheme governs these assets and not the PMLA.
19. The approach of the ED in relation to the PACL matter, prior to the
issuance of the impugned POA, may now be considered.
20. It appears the ED had vide letter dated 01.09.2016, addressed to the
Lodha Committee, informed the latter, about an amount of Rs. 113.45
Crores purportedly being received by Systematics Venture Capital Trust
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
19:46:40
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Ltd. (“ SVCT ”) from PACL Ltd., through 25 front companies, and that
SVCT further invested this amount into two entities, namely M/s. Unicom
Infra Projects & Estates Private Ltd., Mumbai (Rs. 60.79 Crores) and M/s.
DDPL Global Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai (Rs. 33.11 Crores), the latter
being the petitioners herein.
21. Acting on the aforenoted investigative information, letters were issued
to SVCT by the Lodha Committee seeking details of the manner in which
the amount was received as also the repayment plan which could be resorted
to. It appears that SVCT had replied by stating that it had received Rs.
110.95 Crores from the 25 subsidiaries of PACL and had repaid Rs. 19.04
Crores to those companies. Thereafter, pursuant to regular follow-ups by the
Lodha Committee, SVCT paid amounts of Rs. 4,88,98,193/- on 13.12.2016
and Rs. 11,98,00,573/- on 06.01.2017, totalling Rs. 16,86,98,766/- (Rupees
Sixteen Crores Eighty Six Lakhs Ninety Eight Thousand Seven Hundred
and Sixty Six). This is confirmed by the Second Status Report dated
11.04.2017 filed by the Lodha Committee before the Supreme Court.
22. From the aforenoted it is clear that it was ED‟s own investigation and
the information furnished by it to the Lodha Committee that directly resulted
in the recovery of Rs. 16.86 Crores from SVCT for the benefit of PACL‟s
investors. By choosing this route, of feeding its investigative findings into
the Lodha Committee machinery, rather than directly invoking its powers
under the PMLA, the ED conclusively demonstrated its own understanding
that the Lodha Committee was the proper and correct avenue for, at the first
instance, dealing with the assets in question.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
19:46:40
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
23. Had the ED genuinely believed that the assets in question were to be
dealt with in accordance with the scheme of the PMLA, the amount of Rs.
16.86 Crores recovered from SVCT pursuant to the ED‟s information ought
also to have been subjected to the provisions of the PMLA and, as a matter
of rule, vested in the Central Government, except where the rigours of
Section 8(8) of the Act were satisfied, by the Special Court.
24. Importantly, the Lodha Committee, on the basis of the aforesaid
information provided by the ED, directed SEBI on 01.03.2021 to attach the
accounts of the petitioners to the tune of Rs. 49.67 Crores, by way of a
demand notice and attachment order. It is against this backdrop of the ED‟s
own prior conduct that the issuance of the impugned POA dated 19.05.2022
must be examined.
25. From the aforesaid, it is evident, that ED was cognizant of the Scheme
laid down by the Supreme Court, vide order dated 02.02.2016. It had
previously taken the route of providing information to the Lodha Committee
for the purpose of attachment of assets allegedly linked to PACL. Said route,
ex facie it appears, was the ED, in effect, adhering to and modifying its own
powers under the PMLA, to fulfil the goal sought be achieved by the
Supreme Court through its directions passed under Article 142 of the
Constitution concerning the affairs of PACL.
26. Even otherwise, owing to the stark contrast between the ultimate
objective of the scheme of the PMLA, where the properties are intended to
vest with the Central Government; and that established by the Supreme
Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, where the properties, or their
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
19:46:40
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
proceeds, are restored with the investors, the Impugned Orders, which have
been passed under Section 5 of the PMLA, without prior consultation or
intimation with the Lodha Committee, can ex facie be considered as being in
the teeth of the Supreme Court directions. This understanding is further
confirmed by the ED‟s Said Applications, wherein it has prayed for the very
restitution of the attached property to the Lodha Committee in accordance
with the scheme under Section 8(8) of the PMLA.
27. At its highest the ED‟s case may be appreciated as putting forth an
emergent and dire need existing at the time the Impugned Orders were
issued, requiring immediate attachment. That purpose also, as on date, has
been satisfied and no longer remains alive. The petitioners, during the course
of hearing, have also given an undertaking that they shall not alienate or
create a charge on the properties subject matter of the Impugned Orders till a
final adjudication is done by the Lodha Committee. Meaning thereby the
Impugned Orders, as on date, have served the purpose.
28. It may also importantly be noted that in the broader scheme of the
framework of the Lodha Committee, it would be difficult to accept the
proposition that the Lodha Committee, would not be able to provide and
remedy emergent situations requiring immediate redressal, if such
information is brought to its notice. Similarly, while the argument of the ED
that an attachment is fundamentally preservative is not doubted. However,
when it is undertaken without consultation with the Lodha Committee, it
falls ill of the framework devised by the Supreme Court.
29. However, there is indeed an argument to be made that in the instant
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
19:46:40
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
case setting aside of the Impugned Orders would allow the possibility of the
assets, which are the subject matter of the Impugned Orders, to be
dissipated. Owing to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the
undertaking of the petitioners and the directions being passed by the Court,
the said concern is adequately taken care of. Resultantly, it is found fit to set
aside the Impugned Orders, take the present lis outside the strict complete
code of the PMLA, and relegate the matter to the Lodha Committee to be
decided in accordance with the scheme envisaged by the Supreme Court, in
exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, for the affairs of
PACL.
30. The Court is also conscious of the fact that the Impugned Orders were
passed in the year 2022. The matter has hanged fire, approximately for a
period of 4 years. No adjudication has taken place by any competent
authority. The investors interest, which is sought to be protected, by the
Supreme Court‟s scheme under Article 142, surely, gets compromised by
the present matter remaining on the docket.
31. In light of the discussion above, and the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, the Impugned Orders deserve to be set aside, and
the matter deserves to be relegated to the Lodha Committee as – first , the
scheme of the PMLA stands in stark contrast to the scheme envisaged by the
Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution pertaining to the assets
of the PACL; second , ED has in the past, proceeded in accordance with the
latter scheme, and the same is a matter of record; third , the petitioners are
directed that the concerned assets will not be dissipated/alienated till an
adjudication is made by the Lodha Committee, thus the Impugned Orders
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
19:46:40
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
have served their purpose; and fourth , the matter has hang fire for 4 long
years without any meaningful adjudication taking place, or the matter being
6
taken to its logical end by the ED, which as per its own stand, as also owing
to the interim order dated 22.05.2022 passed by this Court, cannot proceed
with the matter.
32. Accordingly, the Said Applications of the ED, in each of the
respective writ petitions, are allowed. The Impugned Orders are hereby set
aside and the matter is relegated to the Lodha Committee to be decided in
accordance with law.
33. The petitioners are bound by their undertaking, and the Court hereby
directs that the assets/properties which are the subject matter of the
Impugned Orders shall not be dissipated/alienated, or a charge shall not be
created upon them, till a final determination/adjudication is undertaken by
the Lodha Committee.
34. All questions relating to, inter alia , the restoration of the properties
are left open. It is clarified that the Court has not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the case.
W.P.(C) 8406/2022, W.P.(C) 12276/2022 and W.P.(C) 12865/2022
35. In light of the Said Applications being allowed, the captioned writ
petitions are disposed of.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
APRIL 28, 2026/p/ksr
6
As evinced from the Said Applications.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
19:46:40
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV