Authority: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur

Order Date: 16.10.2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners:

1. Smt. Soumya Sharma, W/o Vidit Sharma, aged about 27, residing at Flat No. 1304, Arhint Ayati, Pal Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan (originally R/o Hig/c, 109‑A, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh).

2. Smt. Suman Sharma, W/o Shri Subhash Sharma, aged about 59, residing at Hig C 109‑A, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. M/s Soumya Broadcasting Pvt. Ltd., located at Village Kandul, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, represented by Ritik Barik, S/o Shri Bhavagrahi Barik, aged about 28.

  • Respondent in all three writ petitions: Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, Raipur Zonal Office, A‑1 Block, 2nd Floor, Purjari Chamber, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001.
  • Writ Petition Numbers: WPC No. 2974 of 2021 (lead case), WPC No. 3447 of 2021, and WPC No. 3378 of 2021. All three petitions were clubbed for a common hearing.
  • Reliefs sought by the petitioners (as per petition No. 2974):
  • Call for the entire records of the Adjudicating Authority pertaining to the case.
  • Quash the notice dated 14.07.2021 issued under Rule 5(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering (Taking Possession of Attached or Frozen Properties Confirmed by The Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2013.
  • Quash the notice for taking possession under Section 8(4) of the PMLA dated 14.07.2021.
  • Quash the order dated 23.06.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 8 of the PMLA.
  • Any other relief deemed fit.
  • Counsel for petitioners: Mr. Abhishek Gupta and Mr. Jatin Khatri (Advocates).
  • Counsel for respondent: Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande (Advocate).
  • Petitioners argued that the Appellate Tribunal under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money‑Laundering Act, 2002, was not functional during the COVID‑19 pandemic, necessitating a direct approach to this Court. They requested continuation of the interim protection already granted.
  • Respondent counsel contended that the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 26 is available and that the petitioners should pursue it before the Appellate Tribunal, rendering the writ petitions non‑maintainable.

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that the petitioners must avail themselves of the statutory appeal under Section 26 of the PMLA before the concerned Appellate Tribunal.
  • Petitioners are directed to file the appeal within 45 days from the date of this order and to file an application for interim relief together with the appeal.
  • If the appeal is filed within the stipulated 45‑day period, the Appellate Tribunal is directed to decide the interim relief application within a further 15 days.
  • The interim order previously passed by this Court shall continue to operate for 60 days from today, or until the Appellate Tribunal decides the interim relief application, whichever occurs earlier.
  • With these directions, the batch of petitions is disposed of.

Topics: Money Laundering, Judicial Procedure