Mumbai News: Special Court Rejects Mehul Choksi’s Plea Seeking ED Action On Remaining Gitanjali Gems Assets

Mumbai News: Special Court Rejects Mehul Choksi’s Plea Seeking ED Action On Remaining Gitanjali Gems Assets

A Mumbai special court dismissed a plea by Mehul Choksi seeking directions to the Enforcement Directorate to attach remaining assets of Gitanjali Gems Ltd, ruling he cannot dictate the course of investigation under money laundering laws.

Charul Shah JoshiUpdated: Sunday, February 08, 2026, 01:04 AM IST
article-image
Mehul Choksi | PTI file photo

Mumbai, Feb 07: A special court on Saturday dismissed a plea by absconding diamantaire Mehul Choksi, who sought directions to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to attach and secure all remaining assets of Gitanjali Gems Ltd (GGL), including its trade receivables.

Choksi cites frozen receivables

Choksi’s lawyer argued that the ED had already attached various movable and immovable assets of GGL. According to the company’s balance sheet as of March 31, 2017, GGL had assets worth Rs 23,539 crore.

The plea stated that Choksi was unable to recover amounts from “trade receivables” as the entire business of GGL was shut down following the registration of an FIR by the CBI.

ED opposes plea, alleges abuse of process

ED prosecutor Kavita Patil strongly opposed the application. She contended that the ED had initiated proceedings against the accused under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Ordinance, 2018, for the confiscation of his properties due to his refusal to return to India to face prosecution. She argued that the applicant was constantly abusing the process of law by filing frivolous applications to delay the trial.

Court rejects request for directions

After hearing both sides, the court observed: “There is substance in the arguments of the Special Public Prosecutor that the accused is trying to recover his outstanding amounts through the ED by filing this application, which is not permissible. Under the PMLA, there are specific provisions and guidelines for investigating officers; an officer can take action against properties only when they have reason to believe that the said properties are linked to the proceeds of crime.”

Also Watch:

“The accused has no right at all to seek directions to the investigating officer to conduct an investigation in a specific direction, especially after the filing of the charge sheet,” the court said, rejecting the plea as not maintainable.

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

RECENT STORIES

Railways' Financial Health Shows Gradual Improvement: Gross Traffic Receipts Up 5.1% In 2024-25 Over...
Railways' Financial Health Shows Gradual Improvement: Gross Traffic Receipts Up 5.1% In 2024-25 Over...
'TDR Is Monetisable Right, Not Claim Over Third-Party Property': Bombay High Court
'TDR Is Monetisable Right, Not Claim Over Third-Party Property': Bombay High Court
'Railway Staff Deaths In Track Work Drop 66% Due To Enhanced Safety, Tech Upgrades': Union Minister...
'Railway Staff Deaths In Track Work Drop 66% Due To Enhanced Safety, Tech Upgrades': Union Minister...
Bombay HC Orders Clear Public Notices For Tree Felling, Slams Pune Municipal Corporation’s...
Bombay HC Orders Clear Public Notices For Tree Felling, Slams Pune Municipal Corporation’s...
Legal Void: Activists Push For Restoration Of Section 377 Amid Surge In Animal Abuse Cases
Legal Void: Activists Push For Restoration Of Section 377 Amid Surge In Animal Abuse Cases