Top
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.

Bank Accounts Frozen under PMLA: Delhi HC Dismisses Plea to De-freeze ₹5 Cr Citing Lack of Urgency and Availability of Unfrozen Funds [Read Order]

Since the asset freeze had been upheld by both the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Tribunal, and the main appeal remained pending, the Court concluded that granting interim relief would undermine the purpose of the PMLA

Bank Accounts Frozen under PMLA: Delhi HC Dismisses Plea to De-freeze ₹5 Cr Citing Lack of Urgency and Availability of Unfrozen Funds [Read Order]
X

The High Court of Delhi,dismissed a plea seeking de-freezing of ₹5 crore from bank accounts frozen under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA),2002, citing lack of urgency and availability of unfrozen funds. Nimrita Parvinder Singh, Petitioner-assessee, approached the Delhi High Court seeking de-freezing of her bank accounts and investments frozen under the PMLA. The...


The High Court of Delhi,dismissed a plea seeking de-freezing of ₹5 crore from bank accounts frozen under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA),2002, citing lack of urgency and availability of unfrozen funds.

Nimrita Parvinder Singh, Petitioner-assessee, approached the Delhi High Court seeking de-freezing of her bank accounts and investments frozen under the PMLA. The accounts were frozen in connection with a money laundering case involving her father, Malvinder Mohan Singh, who was accused of siphoning ₹1,260 crore from Religare Finvest Ltd through unsecured loans routed to promoter-linked entities.

Planning smarter for FY 2025–26? Don’t miss this trusted guide used by thousands of tax professionals & CA students! Click here 

The Enforcement Directorate registered an ECIR in 2019 and later seized various assets, including bank accounts, artworks, and documents belonging to the petitioner. In 2022, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the freeze, and the Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision in May 2024.

In her application, the petitioner requested access to ₹5 crore to meet education and living expenses. She argued that she was not named in the FIR, chargesheets, or any ED complaints, and there was no link between her assets and the alleged crime. She also pointed out that the freeze on 27 family accounts since 2022 caused financial hardship, with the funds lying idle and not earning any interest.

The Court noted that the appellants sought access to frozen funds to cover living expenses and pursue further education. However, a similar plea had earlier been raised before the Appellate Tribunal but was not pursued.

On examining the material, the Court found that while one applicant submitted offer letters from foreign universities indicating tuition fees of ₹27–30 lakhs, complete fee details were missing. Another applicant only provided a GMAT confirmation email without scores or proof of any admission process. The third offered no documentary evidence at all.

The Enforcement Directorate submitted that two of the applicants had not shown any credible engagement in academic admissions. As for the third applicant, the Court observed that her ₹30 lakh tuition need could be met through ₹90 lakhs already available in six unfrozen bank accounts.

These factual assertions remained uncontested. It agreed with the ED’s submission that, apart from one quantified fee requirement, there was no credible justification for access to nearly ₹5 crores. It found the applicants’ claims vague, inadequately supported, and lacking urgency.

Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan also noted that two of the applicants were already educated and employed professionals and had not demonstrated any compelling need for daily expenses.

Since the asset freezing had been upheld by the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Tribunal, and with the main appeals still pending, the Court held that releasing additional funds at this stage could defeat the purpose of the PMLA.

Accordingly, finding no merit in the applications, the Court dismissed them.

The High Court of Delhi,dismissed a plea seeking de-freezing of ₹5 crore from bank accounts frozen under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA),2002, citing lack of urgency and availability of unfrozen funds.

Nimrita Parvinder Singh, Petitioner-assessee, approached the Delhi High Court seeking de-freezing of her bank accounts and investments frozen under the PMLA. The accounts were frozen in connection with a money laundering case involving her father, Malvinder Mohan Singh, who was accused of siphoning ₹1,260 crore from Religare Finvest Ltd through unsecured loans routed to promoter-linked entities.

The Enforcement Directorate registered an ECIR in 2019 and later seized various assets, including bank accounts, artworks, and documents belonging to the petitioner. In 2022, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the freeze, and the Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision in May 2024.

In her application, the petitioner requested access to ₹5 crore to meet education and living expenses. She argued that she was not named in the FIR, chargesheets, or any ED complaints, and there was no link between her assets and the alleged crime. She also pointed out that the freeze on 27 family accounts since 2022 caused financial hardship, with the funds lying idle and not earning any interest.

The Court noted that the appellants sought access to frozen funds to cover living expenses and pursue further education. However, a similar plea had earlier been raised before the Appellate Tribunal but was not pursued.

On examining the material, the Court found that while one applicant submitted offer letters from foreign universities indicating tuition fees of ₹27–30 lakhs, complete fee details were missing. Another applicant only provided a GMAT confirmation email without scores or proof of any admission process. The third offered no documentary evidence at all.

The Enforcement Directorate submitted that two of the applicants had not shown any credible engagement in academic admissions. As for the third applicant, the Court observed that her ₹30 lakh tuition need could be met through ₹90 lakhs already available in six unfrozen bank accounts.

These factual assertions remained uncontested. It agreed with the ED’s submission that, apart from one quantified fee requirement, there was no credible justification for access to nearly ₹5 crores. It found the applicants’ claims vague, inadequately supported, and lacking urgency.

Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan also noted that two of the applicants were already educated and employed professionals and had not demonstrated any compelling need for daily expenses.

Since the asset freezing had been upheld by the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Tribunal, and with the main appeals still pending, the Court held that releasing additional funds at this stage could defeat the purpose of the PMLA.

Accordingly, finding no merit in the applications, the Court dismissed them.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates

Next Story

Related Stories

All Rights Reserved. Copyright @2019