Mumbai PMLA court orders ₹22.40 crore property restoration to legitimate claimants
Synopsis
In a rare move, the ED backed — rather than opposed — the return of ₹22.40 crore in PMLA-attached properties to legitimate claimants in the Usher Agro bank fraud case. The Mumbai Special Court's 23 July order shows how insolvency liquidation and anti-money laundering law can align to restore assets to those genuinely defrauded in a ₹916 crore scam.
Key Takeaways
A Mumbai Special PMLA Court ordered restoration of ₹22.40 crore in attached immovable properties to legitimate claimants on 23 July 2025 .
M/s Usher Agro Ltd. , linked to Vinod Kumar Chaturvedi and Manoj Pathak , allegedly defrauded a bank consortium of ₹916 crore through shell companies.
The ED had provisionally attached the properties in 2021 ; the attachment was later confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority .
The NCLT, Mumbai initiated insolvency proceedings against M/s Usher Eco Power Ltd. ; following failed resolution, a liquidator sought the properties' return.
The ED raised no objection to restoration, citing the PMLA's restitution objective — a key factor in the court's order.
A Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in Mumbai has ordered the restoration of attached immovable properties worth ₹22.40 crore to bona fide legitimate claimants, according to an official statement. The order was passed by the Additional Sessions Judge on 23 July 2025, marking a significant restitution milestone in a multi-crore bank fraud case.
Background: The Bank Fraud That Triggered the Probe
The Enforcement Directorate (ED)'s Mumbai Zonal Office had launched a money laundering investigation against Vinod Kumar Chaturvedi, Manoj Pathak, and others over their alleged role in generating and laundering proceeds of crime. Investigations revealed that M/s Usher Agro Ltd. — a company allegedly owned and controlled by Chaturvedi and Pathak — had defrauded a consortium of banks of approximately ₹916 crore by systematically siphoning off loan funds through a network of shell companies. The promoters allegedly used related group entities to route and divert the funds further.
The Attachment and Legal Proceedings
As part of its probe, the ED had provisionally attached immovable properties worth ₹22.40 crore in 2021. The attachment was subsequently confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA. The ED also filed a prosecution complaint before the Special PMLA Court in Mumbai, seeking confiscation of the attached properties as proceeds of crime.
Separately, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai, initiated the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against M/s Usher Eco Power Ltd. When the resolution process failed, liquidation proceedings were commenced, and the appointed liquidator subsequently approached the Special PMLA Court seeking restoration of the attached properties.
Why the ED Did Not Oppose Restoration
Notably, the ED itself informed the court that it had no objection to releasing the attached assets, citing the PMLA's core objective of restituting proceeds of crime to bona fide legitimate claimants. Based on the ED's submissions, the Additional Sessions Judge ordered the restitution on 23 July 2025.
Significance of the Order
This case illustrates a relatively rare but important aspect of PMLA proceedings — where the agency that initiated attachment actively supports restoration to legitimate parties rather than seeking confiscation. According to the ED, the move reflects its commitment to ensuring that proceeds of crime ultimately reach those genuinely harmed by financial fraud. This comes amid broader scrutiny of how insolvency and anti-money laundering frameworks intersect when corporate entities collapse under the weight of alleged fraud.
The outcome is being watched closely by creditors and insolvency practitioners as a precedent for how PMLA-attached assets can be returned through coordinated action between the ED, NCLT liquidators, and special courts.
Point of View
While specific to one case, could embolden liquidators in future NCLT proceedings to approach PMLA courts more confidently. The larger question is whether the ₹916 crore defrauded from the bank consortium will ever be substantially recovered — property restoration worth ₹22.40 crore is a fraction of the alleged fraud, and the gap between attachment and actual victim relief remains a structural weakness in India's financial crime enforcement architecture.
NationPress
25 Jul 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the Mumbai PMLA court order on 23 July 2025?
The Additional Sessions Judge of the Special PMLA Court in Mumbai ordered the restoration of attached immovable properties worth ₹22.40 crore to bona fide legitimate claimants. The order came after the ED raised no objection to the release of assets in the Usher Agro bank fraud case.
What is the Usher Agro bank fraud case?
M/s Usher Agro Ltd., allegedly controlled by Vinod Kumar Chaturvedi and Manoj Pathak, is accused of defrauding a consortium of banks of approximately ₹916 crore by siphoning loan funds through shell companies and related group entities. The ED launched a PMLA investigation and attached properties worth ₹22.40 crore in 2021.
Why did the ED not oppose the restoration of attached properties?
The ED told the court it had no objection to releasing the assets, citing the PMLA's objective of restituting proceeds of crime to bona fide legitimate claimants. The liquidator appointed by the NCLT had approached the court seeking the properties' return after insolvency resolution failed.
What role did the NCLT play in this case?
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai, initiated the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against M/s Usher Eco Power Ltd. When the resolution process failed, liquidation proceedings began, and the liquidator sought restoration of the PMLA-attached properties from the Special Court.
What does this order mean for future PMLA and insolvency cases?
The order is seen as a precedent for how PMLA-attached assets can be returned to legitimate parties through coordination between the ED, NCLT liquidators, and special courts. It signals that confiscation is not the automatic outcome of every PMLA attachment, particularly where bona fide claimants can be identified.
