loader image
X-twitter Instagram Linkedin-in Youtube Telegram Facebook Spotify

We are your leading legal content destination.

JOIN WHATSAPP GROUP

National Herald Case: Delhi High Court Declines to Restrain AJL from Seeking Release of Attached Properties

National Herald Case: Delhi High Court Declines to Restrain AJL from Seeking Release of Attached Properties

National Herald Attached Property Dispute
Picture of Bhumika Indulia

Bhumika Indulia

Bhumika Indulia is a qualified lawyer and legal editor with over 13 years of experience in law, legal publishing, and regulatory compliance. Her work focuses on clear, accurate legal reporting and analysis across legislation, case law, and criminal law reforms, alongside expertise in areas such as data privacy and cyber security. In June 2025, she founded The Bar Bulletin as an independent platform dedicated to informed, credible, and accessible legal discourse.

Assistant Director of Enforcement, Directorate of Enforcement v. Smt. Sonia Gandhi, Decided on 12.10.2026

The Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Sachin Datta, has declined to pass an interim order restraining Associated Journals Limited (AJL) from pursuing the release of its properties attached by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the National Herald money laundering case. The Court observed that it was not inclined to issue any direction concerning the proceedings before the PMLA Appellate Tribunal at this stage, noting that the respondents were presently not accused persons.

The Court was hearing the ED’s revision petition challenging the 16 December 2025 order of Special Judge Vishal Gogne of the Rouse Avenue Courts, which declined to take cognisance of the ED’s prosecution complaint against Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Young Indian, AJL and others. Appearing for the ED, Additional Solicitor General S. V. Raju submitted that the companies were relying on the trial court’s order to seek release of attached properties, including Herald House in New Delhi, before the Appellate Tribunal.

The ED alleges that AJL’s shares were transferred to Young Indian pursuant to a criminal conspiracy to acquire AJL’s assets illegally. The trial court had declined to take cognisance of the ED’s complaint on the ground that it was not founded on an FIR relating to a scheduled offence, but on proceedings arising from a private complaint filed by Dr. Subramanian Swamy.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on 2 November 2026.

Appearances

Petitioner (Directorate of Enforcement): Mr. S. V. Raju, Additional Solicitor General, with Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Panel Counsel for ED.

Respondent No. 1 (Smt. Sonia Gandhi): Mr. Kapil Sibal, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Tarannum Cheema, Advocate.

Respondent No. 2 (Shri Rahul Gandhi): Mr. R. S. Cheema, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Tarannum Cheema, Advocate.

Respondent No. 3 (Shri Suman Dubey): Mr. Sushil Bajaj with Mr. Akshay Nagarajan, Advocates.

Respondent No. 4 (Shri Sam Pitroda): Mr. Prashanto Chandra Sen, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Kuber Boddh, Advocate.

Respondent No. 5 (M/s Young Indian): Mr. Nakul Gandhi and others, Advocates.

Respondent No. 6 (M/s Dotex Merchandise Private Limited): Mr. Pramod Kumar Dubey, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Gautam Khazanchi and Mr. Kushank Sindhu, Advocates.

Respondent No. 7 (Shri Sunil Bhandari): Ms. Sowjhanya Shankaran, Advocate.

Other Posts

Categories