IREO MD Lalit Goyal Already Went to US and Returned: Punjab & Haryana HC Dismisses ED’s PMLA Travel-Ban Petition as Infructuous [Read Order]

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently dismissed as infructuous a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) seeking to prevent Lalit Goyal, the arraigned Managing Director of IREO and an accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 from travelling abroad to the USA for treatment.

The ED had invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to challenge an order passed by the Special Judge (PMLA), Panchkula which had allowed Goyal a nine-day visit to the USA in connection with his eye treatment.

This plea was preceded by earlier litigation concerning Goyal’s travel out of the country. In February 2025, the ED had in similar manner, contested permission granted by the Special Judge, Panchkula, allowing Goyal to travel overseas for specialized medical consultation.

That petition was heard by Justice N.S. Shekhawat who upheld the order of the Special Judge. Justice Shekhawat emphasized that while Goyal was accused in a serious money-laundering case involving alleged siphoning of over ₹1,780 crore, the right to seek proper medical treatment abroad could not be denied, subject to compliance with conditions stipulated by the court.

The Court in that case imposed additional measures including the deposit of family passports, non-alienation of properties and weekly appearances before the ED.

Comprehensive Guide of Law and Procedure for Filing of Income Tax Appeals, Click Here

In the present case, Zoheb Hossain, Lokesh Narang and Shubhleen Dhariwal appeared for the ED.

Gurmohan Singh Bedi and Pawandeep Singh registered appearance on behalf of the respondent Lalit Goyal and filed a power of attorney which was taken on record by the Punjab & Haryana High Court.

The Respondent’s counsel submitted that the instant petition would be rendered infructuous since Lalit Goyal had already travelled abroad for the treatment of his eye ailment and had returned already.

The Bench of Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul noted that since the respondent had already undertaken the permitted journey to the United States and returned, the relief sought failed to survive.

The order leaves intact the earlier directions and conditions regulating Goyal’s travel and clarifies that once travel is concluded and the respondent has returned, the ED’s attempt to restrain such travel cannot be sustained.

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