903-wp.1462.2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1462 OF 2026 Sukhbir Kaur W/o Iqbal Singh ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Sanjiv Punalekar with Mr. Sachin Kanse, Ms. Ekta Rajpurohit i/b Mr. Sachin Kanse for the Petitioner. Ms. Leena Patil, Special Public Prosecutor with Ms. Sangeeta Shinde, A.P.P. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2-State. Mr. Arvind Lakhawat with Mr. Nimeet Sharma i/b MZM Legal LLP, for the Respondent No.3 – National Spot Exchange Ltd. (NSEL) API – Bharat Mane, Unit – 14, NSEL, EOW, Mumbai, is present. CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE & ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ. DATE : 2nd SEPTEMBER 2026 P.C. : 1. The petitioner, Sukhbir Kaur, wife of Iqbal Singh, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a direction against the respondent-State to raise the attachment on the properties set out in Exhibit-F, which form part of two Notifications issued by the Government of Maharashtra by invoking Section 4(1) of the N. S. Chitnis 1/5 NISHA SANDEEP CHITNIS Digitally signed by NISHA SANDEEP CHITNIS Date: 2026.09.05 12:26:26 +0530 903-wp.1462.2026.doc Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (“MPID Act”). The properties purportedly attached are covered by two Notifications, namely, the Notifications dated 31st March 2017 and 11th April 2016, respectively. The claim of the petitioner is that the properties stand in her own name and that she is in no way concerned with the Notifications issued by the State Government in the wake of the defaults committed by various companies towards the National Spot Exchange Limited (“NSEL”), and the offences registered by the Economic Offences Wing (“EOW”) invoking various provisions of the Indian Penal Code as well as the MPID Act. According to the petitioner, her husband and son are alleged to be Directors of Namdhari Foods International Private Limited, which is also shown as a defaulter in the Notifications. It is, however, her specific contention that the properties attached are not properties standing in the name of the Directors of Namdhari Foods International Private Limited, but stand in her name. N. S. Chitnis 2/5 903-wp.1462.2026.doc 2. We confronted Mr. Punalekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, with the remedy available to him before the Designated Court in respect of the attachment. Upon the Notification being issued and before the attachment is made absolute, a procedure is contemplated whereby the Designated Court is required to issue notice to any other person whose property is attached and vested in the Competent Authority by the Government under Section 4, calling upon such person to show cause as to why the order of attachment should not be made absolute. Section 7(3) of MPID Act also contemplates that any person claiming an interest in the property attached or any portion thereof may, notwithstanding that no notice has been served upon him under the said Section, make an objection in respect thereof before the Designated Court at any time before an order is passed under sub- section (4) or sub-Section (6), i.e. before the attachment is made final. N. S. Chitnis 3/5 903-wp.1462.2026.doc In these circumstances, in our view, since the State Government has already initiated proceedings making the attachment in the two Notifications absolute, and the attachments are not yet made absolute, it is open to the petitioner to approach the Designated Court and raise an objection that the properties attached belong exclusively to her. Upon such objection being raised, the Designated Court is duty-bound to consider the same and decide the objection in accordance with law. At this stage the learned counsel representing the NSEL submits that this order shall not, in any manner come in the way of Supreme Court appointed Committee for attachment of the properties. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to clarify that the Committee appointed by the Supreme Court for execution of the decrees obtained by the NSEL, definitely will take a call depending upon the objection that is filed and the pronouncement from the Designated Court on the said objection. N. S. Chitnis 4/5 903-wp.1462.2026.doc With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J. BHARATI DANGRE, J. N. S. Chitnis 5/5