The Chhattisgarh High Court on 1 September 2025 dismissed a writ petition filed by Hrishabh Soni and his wife Komal Soni seeking to replace six immovable properties — provisionally attached by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) — with an equivalent fixed deposit of ₹4.36 crore under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). A bench led by Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held that the petitioners failed to establish any statutory or enforceable right to seek such a substitution.

Background: DMF Irregularities and ED Attachment

The six properties were provisionally attached by the ED on 9 December 2024, treated as equivalent value of alleged proceeds of crime linked to irregularities in the District Mineral Fund (DMF). The attachment was subsequently confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority on 23 May 2025.

The petitioners had already challenged the confirmation before the PMLA Appellate Tribunal. While those appeals remained pending, they separately sought substitution of the six properties — a request the Tribunal rejected on 7 April 2026.

What the Petitioners Argued

Before the High Court, the Sonis contended that the continued attachment was causing financial hardship and disrupting their business activities. They argued that they were prepared to furnish a liquid fixed deposit of equal value and that the properties were attached only as equivalent value — not as direct proceeds of crime.

They also invoked the court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, contending that the High Court could mould relief even where the Tribunal lacked the power to do so.

What the ED Said

The ED opposed the petition on two grounds. First, it argued there is no general statutory provision permitting such substitution, and that the petitioners ought to have pursued the statutory appeal route under Section 42 of the PMLA rather than filing a writ petition. Second, the agency pointed to material indicating alleged siphoning of DMF funds through accommodation entries and payment of commissions.

Court's Ruling and Reasoning

The High Court rejected the plea, holding that a mere offer of an equivalent fixed deposit does not create a right to substitution. It noted that Rule 5(5) of the 2013 Rules framed under the PMLA applies only in cases of joint ownership and uses the expression 'may accept' — making any such acceptance discretionary, not obligatory.

The court further held that financial hardship alone cannot override the statutory scheme, particularly when the validity of the attachment itself remains pending before the Tribunal. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the bench reiterated that when a special statute provides an efficacious remedy, the High Court should ordinarily refrain from exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.

The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs. The matter before the PMLA Appellate Tribunal remains pending, and the outcome there will be the next decisive moment in the Sonis' legal challenge.