MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 86/2026 & 87/2026 $~16 & 17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 24.09.2026 # CNR No. DLHC010281142026 (16)+ MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 86/2026 & CM APPL. 41361/2026 VAIBHAV JAIN .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sushil Gupta, Ms. Sunita Gupta and Mr. Mayank Gupta, Advs. versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Panel Counsel for ED with Mr. Kanishk Maurya, Mr. Abhinandan Patra and Mr. Manish Kashyap, Advs. # CNR No. DLHC010281182026 (17)+ MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 87/2026 & CM APPL. 41363/2026 SWATI JAIN .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sushil Gupta, Ms. Sunita Gupta and Mr. Mayank Gupta, Advs. versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Panel Counsel for ED with Mr. Kanishk Maurya, Mr. Abhinandan Patra and Mr. Manish Kashyap, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHARDWAJ % 24.09.2026 O R D E R 1. These appeals have been filed challenging the order dated Digitally Signed By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Date:26.09.2026 18:52:49 Signature Not Verified MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 86/2026 & 87/2026 23.03.2026 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA at Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “learned Tribunal”) in applications bearing numbers MP-PMLA-4800/DLI/2025 (A.D.) in FPA-PMLA- 5072/DLI/2022 and in MP-PMLA-3050/DLI/2025 (A.D.) in FPA- PMLA-5307/DLI/2022, dismissing the said applications filed by the appellants herein. 2. The above applications had been filed by the appellants seeking permission to place on record, in the above-mentioned appeals, the additional documents which were the Relied Upon Documents (RUDs) of the respondent in the Prosecution Complaint filed by it before the Special Court. 3. The learned Tribunal has dismissed the above-mentioned applications observing that the plea of the appellants that there was any direction given by the learned Tribunal to the appellants to file the RUDs filed alongwith the complaint by the respondent, is incorrect. The learned Tribunal has further observed that the applications have been filed in a casual manner without giving any reason or the necessity or their relevance for taking those documents on record. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the documents which were sought to be placed on record were the RUDs of the respondent itself. He submits that those documents would be necessary to be considered by the learned Tribunal before forming an opinion on the confirmation of the order of attachment of the properties. He submits that, therefore, the applications have been wrongly rejected by the learned Tribunal. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits Digitally Signed By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Date:26.09.2026 18:52:49 Signature Not Verified MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 86/2026 & 87/2026 that the above appeals were filed by the appellants way back on 7th November, 2022. Thereafter, the appellants, on one pretext or the other, had been taking adjournments before the learned Tribunal causing delay in the adjudication of the said appeals. It is only when the appeals were listed for final hearing that the applications came to be filed by the appellants again to delay the adjudication. He also submits that the applications were filed in a casual manner without even disclosing the relevance of any document that were sought to be placed on record. He submits that, therefore, no fault can be found in the impugned order, and the present appeals deserve to be dismissed. 6. In the rejoinder, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal was dealing with a batch of appeals and the delay caused by the other appellants in the connected appeals is being attributed by the respondent to the present appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that, as far as the present appellants were concerned, they have filed their rejoinder within time before the learned Tribunal and have also been pursuing their appeals with full rigour. 7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties. 8. It is to be emphasized that the appellants are suffering attachment of their properties. They would normally not, therefore, benefit by delaying the adjudication of the appeals. In any case, the documents which are sought to be placed by the appellants before the learned Tribunal, are the documents on which the respondent relies in its complaint. These documents would certainly be relevant to Digitally Signed By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Date:26.09.2026 18:52:49 Signature Not Verified MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 86/2026 & 87/2026 determine if the attachment of the property is to continue during the pendency of the complaint. 9. Given the above facts, we allow the present appeals and set aside the impugned order, however, only insofar as they had refused the prayer of the appellants for placing on record the additional documents. The additional documents, already stand filed before the learned Tribunal, shall be treated to have been taken on record. 10. As far as the cost imposed on the appellants by the impugned order, we find that the appeals were pending since 2022; the documents were always within the knowledge and in possession of the appellants; however, they chose to file the applications to place these documents on record only at a belated stage when the appeals were listed for final hearing before the learned Tribunal. The cost imposed by the learned Tribunal would, therefore, stand. 11. The cost imposed by the learned Tribunal shall be deposited by the appellants with the Appellate Tribunal Forfeited Property Bar Association (A/C No. 5781640490, Central Bank of India) within a period of two weeks from today. 12. The present appeals are disposed of in the above terms. 13. There shall be no orders as to costs. NAVIN CHAWLA, J. ARUN BHARDWAJ, J. SEPTEMBER 24, 2026/bh/hn By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Date:26.09.2026 18:52:49