JSW Steel Ltd. v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement

What happened

Following an FIR registered by the CBI in 2011 against G. Janardhana Reddy and others for offences relating to iron ore mining under the Associated Mining Company's lease, the Directorate of Enforcement alleged that JSW Steel Ltd. had received iron ore supplied in the name of that firm, and provisionally attached assets in the case, which the Adjudicating Authority confirmed. JSW's appeals against the confirmation, FPA/PMLA/4258/BNG/2021 and 4259/BNG/2021, were pending before the Appellate Tribunal. By an order of 30 January 2025 the Tribunal declined to remand the appeals on the plea that JSW's written submissions and synopsis had not been considered, observing that the issues could not be decided piecemeal, and gave both sides liberty to argue every issue. JSW challenged that order by writ petitions, and this Court granted an interim order in them.

Questions before the court

• Could the High Court interfere under articles 226 and 227 with the Appellate Tribunal's refusal to remand the appeals at an interlocutory stage?

Why the court ruled this way

JSW argued that a violation of natural justice at the first stage cannot be cured at the appellate stage, relying on Institute of Chartered Accountants v. L.K. Ratna and on the Supreme Court's decision in Krishnadatt Awasthy. The Court held that the order did not show any prejudice, as the appeals were pending and the Tribunal had allowed JSW to make all submissions on facts and law, so the petitioner had rushed to Court and obtained an interim order as a tactic (paragraph 28). It added that JSW had challenged the criminal proceedings and the cognizance order in earlier petitions, dismissed on 13 June 2022, and that the Supreme Court, by its judgment of 7 October 2025 in JSW Steel Ltd. v. Enforcement Directorate, had dismissed the appeals, stressing that the PMLA provides a comprehensive and self-contained mechanism of provisional attachment, confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority and appeal to the Appellate Tribunal (paragraphs 29 and 30). The Tribunal's proceedings are a continuation of the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority, and no violation of natural justice was made out (paragraphs 31 and 32).

Controlling point

A writ petition does not lie to short-circuit pending PMLA appeals where the appellant has been allowed to present every contention and shows no prejudice from the Tribunal's procedure.

Order and next steps

The writ petitions were dismissed, without costs. Pending applications did not survive and were disposed of.

Practical implications

A party aggrieved by an interlocutory order of the PMLA Appellate Tribunal should press its points in the appeal, because the High Court will not entertain a writ against an order that leaves all contentions open and shows no prejudice. A challenge to the Adjudicating Authority's handling of written submissions can be made in the appeal.

Limits of this ruling

• The Court did not decide the merits of the attachment or the alleged non-consideration of the submissions, which remain for the Appellate Tribunal.