Authority: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur

Order Date: 24 June 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Applicant – Adhunik Transport Organization Ltd (registered office Mumbai, additional office Raipur). Respondents – State of Chhattisgarh (through Inspector In‑Charge, EOW Wing), Aishwarya Agri Resorts Pvt Ltd, Yesh Corporate Services Pvt Ltd.
  • Proceedings: CRMP No. 1591 of 2026 filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 challenging the order dated 04‑05‑2026 of the Special Judge (PC Act) in Special Criminal (PC Act) Case No. 1/2024, which had dismissed the applicant’s application for removal of a restraint on transfer, purchase and sale of certain properties.
  • Property Details: Approximately 5.471 hectares (13.519 acres) of land situated at Village Raipur, Ring Road No. 1, District Raipur, with structures standing thereon. The applicant claims ownership and possession for several years.
  • Transaction Background: An MoU dated 05‑12‑2022 was entered into with M/s Aishwarya Agri Resorts Pvt Ltd for the sale of the said property. No registered sale deed was executed. The applicant alleges it received Rs 5,15,00,000 (₹5.15 million) from the prospective purchaser and its associates, but the purchaser failed to complete the transaction, leading to termination of the arrangement.
  • Investigative Context: Crime No. 04/2024 registered by ACB/EOW, Raipur, concerning offences under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120‑B of the IPC (large‑scale excise scam). A communication dated 06‑02‑2025 from ACB/EOW to the Collector, Raipur, requested that no third‑party rights be created over the subject properties.
  • Applicant’s Submissions: Asserted it is not an accused, the restraint is solely based on allegations against third parties, the property value exceeds the amount received, and the restraint causes prejudice to its business.
  • State’s Submissions: Contended the properties are linked to proceeds of the alleged excise scam, acquired through benami arrangements by the principal accused, and that lifting the restraint could jeopardise the ongoing investigation.

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that the Special Judge’s refusal to lift the restraint was not perverse or contrary to law, given the ongoing investigation and the risk of third‑party alienation of the properties.
  • No ground was found for interference under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
  • The petition was dismissed at the motion stage, and the restraint on transfer, purchase and sale of the properties remains in force.

Topics: Legal Restraint, Property Litigation, Criminal Investigation