$~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010519422025 + MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 51/2025 & CM APPL. 46518/2025 ERUMM MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED .....Appellant Through: Mr.Uday Bedi, Mr.Jaitegan Singh Khurana, Ms.Smiksha Sinhroha, Advs. versus ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE THROUGH ITS DEPUTY DIRECTOR .....Respondent Through: Mr.Vivek Gurnani, Panel Counsel (ED) with Mr.Kanishk Maurya and Mr.Abhinandan Patra, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA O R D E R % 10.08.2026 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, challenging the order dated 18.12.2024 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA at New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘impugned order’) in appeal bearing no. FPA-PMLA-3513/HYD/2020. 2. By the said impugned order, the challenge of the appellant is to a Provisional Attachment order qua two vehicles, that are, a Mercedes Benz and a BMW belonging to the appellant, which have been confirmed by the learned Appellate Tribunal with a rather cryptic This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/08/2026 at 11:23:45 order. The same is reproduced as under: “The appeal has been filed to challenge the order of the Adjudicating Authority confirming the seizure and retention of the property which were subsequently attached by the respondent. The attachment order was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority and accordingly, the appeal has been filed against the attachment order involving same property thus this appeal is disposed of with a clarity that appellant may raise all the issues for challenge to the attachment because now seizure and retention of the property has proceeded with the attachment and accordingly, this appeal is rendered infructuous and is disposed of accordingly.” 3. The learned counsel for the respondent has handed over instructions received by him by way of an e-mail dated 07.08.2026 from the Assistant Director (AD11), Enforcement Directorate, Hyderabad Zonal Office, which reads as under: “With reference to the trailing email, it is submitted that the mentioned movable properties were seized in the course of search proceedings on 29.07.2019 and prayed for confirmation under OA: 322/2019 and the same was allowed. However, these were not attached under any of two PAOs bearing no’s 04/2019 dated 17.09.2019 and 04/2021 dated 20.05.2021.” 4. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the entire basis of the impugned order is, therefore, incorrect and he does not oppose that the same be set aside and the matter be remanded back for adjudication of the appeal on merits. The learned counsel for the appellant also prays for the same. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/08/2026 at 11:23:45 5. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 18.12.2024 passed in FPA-PMLA-3513/HYD/2020 is hereby set aside and the appeal is revived before the learned Tribunal. 6. The learned Tribunal shall adjudicate the appeal filed by the appellant on merits and remaining uninfluenced by its earlier order. 7. The parties shall appear before the learned Tribunal on 10th September, 2026. 8. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. The pending application is disposed of as infructuous. NAVIN CHAWLA, J RAVINDER DUDEJA, J AUGUST 10, 2026/ns/hn This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/08/2026 at 11:23:45