LexM/S. NAV NIRMAN BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, NAVEEN SINGH versus THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, GOVT OF INDIA RANCHI, JHARKHAND
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2026] 2 S.C.R. 406 : 2026 INSC 130 M/s. Nav Nirman Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Through its Managing Director, Naveen Singh v. The Union of India Through Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Govt of India Ranchi, Jharkhand (Criminal Appeal No. 729 of 2026) 06 February 2026 [M.M. Sundresh* and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.] Issue for Consideration In the instant case, this Court is concerned with the decision-making process adopted by the Special Court. Instead of deferring the application filed u/s.8(7) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), and awaiting the adjudication by the Appellate Tribunal u/s.26 of the PMLA, the Special Court has allowed the said application. Headnotes† Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 – ss.8(7) and s.8(8): Held: Section 8(7) and Section 8(8) of the PMLA are stand-alone provisions. [Para 52] Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 – s.8(7) – When attracted: Held: s.8(7) of the PMLA gets attracted only in case of a contingency and an application under the said provision can be decided by the Special Court only once the confirmation order attains finality. [Para 52] Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 – ss.8(3) and 8(7) – Import of the expression “material before it” occurring in s.8(7) of the PMLA: Held: The expression “material before it” occurring in s.8(7) of the PMLA has a limited import to the extent of showing the contingency and the entitlement to possession as regards the Director or any * Author [2026] 2 S.C.R. 407 M/s. Nav Nirman Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Through its Managing Director, Naveen Singh v. The Union of India Through Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Govt of India Ranchi, Jharkhand third party – In case of a party who has suffered an adverse order u/s.8(3) of the PMLA, relief u/s.8(7) of the PMLA can be sought for, provided there is new material that was not placed before or considered by the Adjudicating Authority u/s.8(3) of the PMLA, or by the higher forums, if so challenged. [Para 52] Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 – Second proviso to s.8(8) – Prevention of Money-laundering (Restoration of Confiscated Property) Rules, 2016 – rr.2(b) and 3A – When can an application under the second proviso to s.8(8) of the PMLA be filed: Held: An application under the second proviso to s.8(8) of the PMLA can only be filed subject to satisfying the essential conditions laid down by Rules 2(b) and 3A of the 2016 Rules. [Para 52] Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 – ss.5(1), 8(3), 8(7), 8(8), 26 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.13(2) r/w. s.13(1)(d) – An FIR was registered for the various offences punishable under the IPC along with s.13(2) r/w. s.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (predicate offence) – A Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) was passed by the respondent, u/s.5(1) of the PMLA, on 17.12.2017, attaching two pieces of land purchased by the appellant in the years 2012 and 2014, in lieu of the amount allegedly received fraudulently by the firm – The Adjudicating Authority passed a confirmation order u/s.8(3) of the PMLA – Aggrieved, an appeal was filed by the appellant u/s.26 of the PMLA – In the meantime, a Prosecution Complaint was filed by the respondent u/s.45 of the PMLA – Charges were framed by the Special Court – Respondent filed application invoking s.8(7) of the PMLA – Thereafter, appellant filed an application invoking s.8(8) of the PMLA – The Special Court considered both the applications together, notwithstanding the pendency of the appeal filed u/s.26 of the PMLA – The Special Court allowed application u/s.8(7) of the PMLA and dismissed application u/s.8(8) of PMLA – Resultantly, the confiscation of the attached properties, as sought by the respondent, was ordered – The order passed by the Special Court allowing the application u/s.8(7) of the PMLA, was confirmed by the High Court – Correctness: 408 [2026] 2 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Held: Admittedly, the appellant company, having suffered an order u/s.8(3) of the PMLA, had preferred an appeal u/s.26 of the PMLA which was pending on the file of the Appellate Tribunal even at the time of filing of the applications u/ss.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 – Once an order under s.8(3) of the PMLA is challenged before a higher forum, a deemed embargo oper
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.