05.08.2026 Sl. No.15 Ct. No.237 S.A. CRR 3014 of 2026 Nilesh Parekh alias Nillesh Parrekh -vs- Union of India & Ors. Mr. Sarvapriya Mukherjee Mr. Varun Kothari Mr. B. N. Joshi Ms. Priyanka Garain …for the petitioner Mr. Arijit Chakrabarti Mr. Debsoumya Basak Ms. Swati Kumari Singh …for E.D. Mr. Soumya Nag Mr. Aman Agarwal Ms. Ritika Dey …for respondent no.3 The petitioner challenges the order dated December 10, 2025, passed by the learned Judge, Special (CBI) Court No. 1, City Sessions Court, Bichar Bhawan, Kolkata. By the said order, the learned Judge allowed an application filed by opposite party no. 3 under Section 8(7) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the "PMLA Act"), seeking disposal of the assets mentioned therein during the pendency of the proceedings. The said application was not opposed by the Enforcement Directorate, opposite party no. 2. Upon hearing the parties, the learned Judge held that opposite party no. 3 should be permitted to take possession of the assets and properties and, in order to prevent their deterioration, be allowed to auction the same. The petitioner claims to be the erstwhile Director and shareholder of M/s. Shree Ganesh Jewellery House (I) Limited, a 2 company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. In the proceedings under the PMLA Act, the said company has been arrayed as accused no. 1, while the petitioner has been arrayed as accused no. 2. It is not in dispute that M/s. Shree Ganesh Jewellery House (I) Limited is presently under liquidation pursuant to proceedings initiated under Section 33 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that a Provisional Attachment Order was issued by the Enforcement Directorate on April 16, 2019, attaching the properties in question. However, by an order dated October 9, 2019, the Adjudicating Authority declined to confirm the provisional attachment and observed as follows: “The Provisional Attachment Order is not confirmed and Complaint is dismissed. Conclusion: On a thorough perusal of the PAO, Complaint, relied upon documents, the investigations conducted by the ED and the statements recorded u/s 50 of the PMLA and on careful consideration of the arguments advanced on behalf of the Complainant and Defendants undersigned comes to the prima facie conclusion that the Defendants have not committed the Scheduled Offence, generated proceeds of crime and laundered them. No doubt the properties attached are not proceeds of crime or value thereof and are not involved in money laundering. Undersigned therefore orders non-confirmation of the above Provisional Attachment Order. This order shall continue during the pendency of the proceedings relating to any offence under this Act before court or under the corresponding law of any other country, before the competent court of criminal jurisdiction outside India as the case may be and became final after an order of confiscation is passed under sub- section (5) to sub-section (7) of section 8 or section 58B or sub-section 2A or section 60.” 3 It is an admitted position before this Court that the Enforcement Directorate has preferred an appeal under Section 26 of the PMLA Act before the Appellate Tribunal against the aforesaid order. However, no final order has yet been passed in the said appeal. It is also not in dispute that, by an order dated September 20, 2023, the Appellate Tribunal directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the properties in question. The appeal remains pending. Mr. Sarvapriya Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that in the absence of an order confirming attachment under Section 8(3) of the PMLA Act, the learned Special Court had no jurisdiction to entertain or allow an application under Section 8(7) of the Act. The application has been contested by the Enforcement Directorate as well as the Official Liquidator. It has been vehemently contended that the petitioner lacks the locus standi to maintain the present revisional application. It is submitted that the petitioner resigned as a Director of M/s. Shree Ganesh Jewellery House (I) Limited on June 30, 2015, and held only a 14% shareholding in the company. It is further submitted that, following the commencement of liquidation proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the petitioner ceased to have any right or interest in the affairs or assets of the company and, therefore, is not competent to challenge the impugned order. The Enforcement Directorate has also contended that the present revisional application is barred by limitation. 4 This Court is of the considered opinion that the order dated December 10, 2025, cannot be sustained. Section 8(7) of the PMLA Act provides as follows: “Where the trial under this Act cannot be conducted by reason of the death of the accused or the accused being declared a proclaimed offender or for any other reason or having commenced but could not be concluded, the Special Court shall, on an application moved by the Director or a person claiming to be entitled to possession of a property in respect of which an order has been passed under sub-section (3) of section 8, pass appropriate orders regarding confiscation or release of the property, as the case may be, involved in the offence of money laundering after having regard to the material before it.” A plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it abundantly clear that the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 8(7) is contingent upon the existence of an order passed under Section 8(3) of the PMLA Act. In the present case, the Adjudicating Authority expressly declined to confirm the Provisional Attachment Order. Furthermore, no order confirming attachment has been passed by the Appellate Tribunal. In the absence of an order under Section 8(3), the provisions of Section 8(7) could not have been invoked. On this ground alone, the impugned order dated December 10, 2025, cannot be sustained. Mr. Sarvapriya Mukherjee has rightly placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported at 2026 SCC OnLine SC 161 (Nav Nirman Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India), wherein it was held: “45. Admittedly, the appellant company, having suffered an order under Section 8(3) of the PMLA, had preferred an appeal under Section 26 of the PMLA which was pending on the file of the Appellate Tribunal even at the time of filing of the applications under Sections 8(7) and 8(8) of the PMLA. The fact that the said appeal was pending before the Appellate Tribunal, for want of coram, is not in dispute. The decision of the 5 Adjudicating Authority under Section 8(3) of the PMLA is subject to the outcome of any further challenge to the same. 46. As discussed, the powers of the Appellate Tribunal are rather wide and exhaustive. What is referred to under Section 8(7) of the PMLA is a confirmation order which has attained finality. At the cost of repetition, once an order under Section 8(3) of the PMLA is challenged before a higher forum, a deemed embargo operates on the conclusion of the proceedings under Section 8(7) of the PMLA. Hence, the Special Court cannot go into the issues which the higher forums have been entrusted with. When an appeal is provided for under the statute, it gives a vested right to any aggrieved person to exhaust the same.” The facts of the present case stand on an even stronger footing. Here, the Adjudicating Authority itself declined to confirm the Provisional Attachment Order under Section 8(3) after recording a prima facie finding that the properties in question were not proceeds of crime and were not involved in money laundering. Heavy reliance has been placed by the learned advocate appearing for the Official Liquidator on Circular No. IBBI/CIRP/87/2025 dated November 4, 2025, issued by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, to contend that where the assets of a corporate debtor are attached by the Enforcement Directorate under the PMLA Act, the Insolvency Professional may move an application before the Special Court under Sections 8(7) or 8(8) of the Act for restitution of such assets. The said circular is of no assistance to opposite party no. 3. As already noticed, the properties in question are not under attachment pursuant to an order under Section 8(3) of the PMLA Act. Consequently, the precondition for invoking Section 8(7) is absent. With regard to the issue of limitation, it appears that the petitioner had earlier challenged the impugned order by filing WPA 6030 of 2026 before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of 6 by a Co-ordinate Bench on July 13, 2026, granting liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the present revisional application within the prescribed period. Accordingly, the delay of approximately 120 days is condoned. The objection regarding the petitioner's locus standi, however, still requires consideration. It is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court may be exercised suo motu under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. In criminal proceedings, the question of locus standi assumes a secondary role where the Court notices a patent jurisdictional error or manifest illegality. The revisional Court is competent to interfere suo motu irrespective of the technical locus of the applicant. This principle finds support in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported at 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3373 (M.R. Ajayan v. State of Kerala), wherein the Court observed: “19. The term “locus standi” is a Latin term, the general meaning of which is “place of standing”. Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 10th Edn., at p. 834, defines the term “locus standi” as the right or capacity to bring an action or to appear in a court. The traditional view of “locus standi” has been that the person who is aggrieved or affected has the standing before the Court that is to say he only has a right to move the Court for seeking justice. Later, this Court, with justice-oriented approach, relaxed the strict rule with regard to “locus standi”, allowing any person from the society not related to the cause of action to approach the Court seeking justice for those who could not approach themselves. Now turning our attention towards the criminal trial, which is conducted, largely, by following the procedure laid down in CrPC. Since, offence is considered to be a wrong committed against the society, the prosecution against the accused person is launched by the State. It is the duty of the 7 State to get the culprit booked for the offence committed by him. The focal point, here, is that if the State fails in this regard and the party having bona fide connection with the cause of action, who is aggrieved by the order of the Court cannot be left at the mercy of the State and without any option to approach the appellate Court for seeking justice.” In the present case, this Court is satisfied that the learned Special Court committed a jurisdictional error by invoking Section 8(7) of the PMLA Act in the absence of an attachment order under Section 8(3) of the Act. Accordingly, irrespective of the objection regarding the petitioner's locus standi, this Court deems it appropriate to exercise its revisional jurisdiction and sets aside the order dated December 10, 2025, passed by the learned Judge, Special (CBI) Court No. 1, City Sessions Court, Bichar Bhawan, Kolkata. Accordingly, CRR 3014 of 2026 is disposed of. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned advocates for the parties on usual undertakings. (Kausik Chanda, J)