Calcutta High Court permits handover of demised premises after PMLA search

The Calcutta High Court, in Karnani Resources LLP Vs Directorate of Enforcement & Ors., dealt with a dispute concerning the handover of leased premises that had earlier been searched by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The matter primarily revolved around whether the occupant (respondent no. 5) could lawfully vacate and deliver peaceful possession of the property to the petitioner, in light of pending obligations arising from an earlier order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

This judgment clarifies that, once investigative authorities confirm they have no objection—subject to compliance with directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court—there is no legal impediment to restoring possession of such premises to the owner/lessor.

Background of the writ petition

Relief sought by the petitioner

The petitioner, Karnani Resources LLP, approached the Calcutta High Court by way of a writ application. The core prayer was for a direction upon respondent nos. 1 to 4 to:

  • Refrain from any act that would obstruct or interfere with
  • The vacating of the demised premises by respondent no. 5, and
  • The delivery of vacant and peaceful possession of the said premises to the petitioner.

In essence, the petitioner sought judicial intervention so that the earlier occupant could lawfully vacate and hand over control of the property without obstruction by enforcement or police authorities.

Position of respondent no. 5 (occupant of the premises)

Counsel appearing for respondent no. 5 (the entity occupying the premises) informed the Court that:

  • Owing to unavoidable circumstances and the presence/deployment of police personnel at the site, respondent no. 5 had been unable, until then, to vacate the property.

  • Despite these constraints, respondent no. 5 was, and continued to be, ready and willing to:

    1. Vacate the premises, and
    2. Deliver peaceful, vacant possession to the petitioner.

It was specifically indicated that once possession was restored, the petitioner would be free either:

  • To lease out the premises to a new party, or
  • To use the premises for its own business or other lawful purposes.

This stand showed that there was no contest between the petitioner and respondent no. 5 with respect to the physical handover of the premises. The only potential impediment was any claim or condition imposed by investigative authorities, especially in view of ongoing proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

ED proceedings and statement before the High Court

Action taken by the Enforcement Directorate

The learned ASGI, appearing for the Enforcement Directorate (ED), produced before the High Court an email dated July 2, 2026. This communication recorded that:

  • The Enforcement Directorate had conducted proceedings under Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 at the office premises of Indian PAC Consulting Pvt. Ltd. on January 8, 2026.
  • The proceedings culminated in nil seizure, meaning that no materials were ultimately seized from the premises.
  • The ED attributed this outcome to “certain external interference” during the course of the search.