Mumbai: Special PMLA Court Rejects ED’s Plea To Confiscate ₹45.49 Crore Jogeshwari Breweries Assets

Mumbai, October 20, 2026: A special Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) court has refused to confiscate assets attached by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) during its investigation into a money laundering case linked to Pune-based Jogeshwari Breweries, observing that the properties can be confiscated only at the conclusion of the trial.

Since the trial in the case has not commenced, the court said there must be convincing reasons for the delay in reaching the stage of commencement of trial.

The ED had sought to confiscate properties worth Rs 45.49 crore attached by the agency during the investigation. The agency claimed that the Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA had confirmed the attachment through an order dated June 30, 2022.

The ED further contended that a major objective of the PMLA is to provide for the confiscation of property derived from or involved in money laundering.

The agency claimed that the proceeds of crime could be attached and confiscated even if the matter did not result in a conviction, provided money laundering was established.

Resolution Professional Seeks Release Of Assets

Meanwhile, the resolution professional appointed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in proceedings against Jogeshwari Breweries filed a plea seeking removal of the attachment so that all the attached properties could be restored to the pool of assets available in the ongoing corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP).

The applications were opposed by Umesh Shinde, the erstwhile director of Jogeshwari Breweries. He denied the submissions made by the resolution professional and the ED, claiming that he had already challenged the Adjudicating Authority’s order.

“Due to the moratorium imposed, the appeal could not proceed effectively and has not reached finality. It is stated that as there is prior legitimate claim and ongoing CIRP, it would be premature, unjust and would severely prejudice his claim for fair trial,” he submitted.

Court Says Confiscation Must Await Trial

While considering the ED’s application, the court observed that under the PMLA, properties can be confiscated only at the conclusion of the trial. In the present case, the proceedings were at a nascent stage, the court noted.

Regarding the resolution professional’s plea, the court said that where the trial has not concluded, properties may be released to a “claimant with a legitimate interest in the property, who may have suffered a quantifiable loss as a result of the offence of money laundering”.

The court, however, noted that neither the ED nor the resolution professional had specifically pleaded any quantified loss.

Also Watch:

“In the present matter in hand, neither the Prosecution (ED), nor the Resolution Professional, have specifically pleaded about their quantified loss. It cannot be the ground for any of the Applicants to seek restoration or reinstatement of the ‘attached properties’ only because the attachment has been confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority. Moreover, the trial in the matter has not commenced far-fetched, the conclusion of the same,” the court observed.

The court consequently rejected both applications.

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/