On 6 February 2026, a Supreme Court bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh decided Nav Nirman Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2026 INSC 130). The judgment deals with how attachment and confiscation of property under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) fit together when an appeal is pending. This question comes up often for companies whose land or buildings have been attached.
What was decided
The ED provisionally attached two land parcels owned by the appellant company. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the attachment under Section 8(3), and the company appealed to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 26. The appeal stayed pending for want of coram. After the main accused died, the prosecution applied for confiscation under Section 8(7). The Special Court allowed it and the High Court upheld that order.
The Supreme Court set both orders aside. It held that Section 8(7) “gets attracted only in case of a contingency” such as death of the accused, and that while the Section 8(3) confirmation is under challenge, the Special Court “is expected to refrain” from deciding an application under Section 8(7). Deciding it anyway made the pending appeal pointless, which the Court called “totally impermissible in law”. The Tribunal’s order dismissing the appeal as infructuous was also set aside. The Tribunal was told to decide the appeal on merits within four weeks, and the Section 8(7) application will wait until then. The company’s separate restoration plea under Section 8(8) was held not maintainable, because it had not shown a quantifiable loss from the offence.
Why it matters
Attachment is often the most commercially damaging step in an ED case. It blocks sale, refinancing and development. This judgment confirms that the statutory appeal to the Appellate Tribunal is a real safeguard, and that it cannot be cut short by moving straight to confiscation.
For developers, landowners and investors in Noida, Greater Noida and elsewhere in Uttar Pradesh whose property has been attached, filing and pursuing the Section 26 appeal on time protects their position at the confiscation stage.
Practical points
- File the Section 26 appeal against a confirmation order within limitation and keep it active. If no bench is available, ask for interim protection.
- Bring a pending appeal to the Special Court’s notice if a Section 8(7) application is filed.
- A restoration claim under Section 8(8) needs proof of a legitimate interest and a quantifiable loss.
- Keep acquisition records, such as the dates and sources of funds, ready for the appeal.
Sources: Supreme Court Cases, Feb 2026; LiveLaw, 7 Feb 2026.
For a confidential discussion on ED/PMLA matters, see ED and PMLA Defence.
General legal information only; not legal advice or solicitation.
