Supreme Court Allows M3M India to Substitute Attached Assets Worth Rs. 317 Crore in ED Case

The bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice R. Mahadevan recorded the mutual agreement and disposed of the petition, allowing the substitution with all nine conditions intact.

Nine Conditions Of Substitution

Firstly, submission of No Encumbrance Certificate: The petitioner shall establish clear and marketable title along with undisputed ownership of the assets proposed for substitution, supported by verifiable documentary evidence, to the satisfaction of the Court. The substituted assets must be free from all encumbrances, including mortgages, liens, pledges or any third-party claims or security interests and a certificate to this effect must be submitted by the petitioner.

Secondly, undertaking not to alienate: The petitioner must provide a notarized undertaking that the substituted property will not be sold, transferred, or otherwise alienated during the pendency of proceedings.

Thirdly, submission of Title Documents: Original title documents of the substituted property must be deposited with the ED or the court, with a formal acknowledgment.

Fourthly, indemnity Bond: The defendant must furnish an indemnity bond to indemnify the ED/government in case of any loss or legal deficiency arising from the substitution.

Fifthly, undertaking to safeguard the third party rights created for other commercial units of the project:

Transactions involving third-party retail buyers/investors for other commercial units in the project (MЗM Broadway) shall remain unaffected by the present enforcement proceedings. The petitioner shall not rely on the pendency of such proceedings to obstruct or delay legitimate transactions, registrations, or project progress. This is to safeguard the interests of genuine purchasers and uphold the commercial viability of the overall project.

Sixthly, consent to hand over possession of alternate assets in the event of confirmation of attachment by Ld. Adjudicating Authority: In the event of confirmation of attachment with respect to the alternate assets by Ld. Adjudicating Authority, the petitioner shall hand over possession of alternate assets to ED.

Sevently, disclosure of Source of Acquisition Funds: The petitioner shall provide a complete and transparent disclosure of the source of funds used to acquire the substituted assets, with supporting financial records, to ensure the substituted assets are untainted and not derived from proceeds of crime.

Eighthly, cooperation with Investigation: The petitioner shall continue to fully cooperate with the investigation by the ED or any other authority under the PMLA and shall produce any documents or appear for inquiry when required.

Lastly, no Prejudice to Ongoing Investigation or Trial: Substitution of properties shall be without prejudice to

the rights of the Directorate of Enforcement and shall not be construed as an acknowledgment of the legality of the source or legitimacy of the attached properties. It shall not affect the merits of the ongoing investigation or trial.”

Background of the Case

The petition stemmed from an appeal (SLP(C) No. 4027/2025) challenging the Sikkim High Court’s earlier order dated June 27, 2023. The case involved the ED’s provisional attachment of certain assets under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), which the petitioners sought to substitute.

Appearing for the petitioners, a high-powered legal team including Senior Advocates Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Vikram Chaudhary, and Atul Nanda argued that the substitution would not prejudice the ongoing investigation and was in the interest of justice.

Details of Substituted Assets

As per submissions, M3M India proposed to substitute the attached properties with unsold commercial units from the “M3M Broadway” project located in Village Fazilpur Jharsa, Gurugram, Haryana. The valuation of these assets, conducted by M/s CSV Techno Solutions LLP (an IT Department-registered valuer), pegged their market worth at ₹317 crores.

• 274 units valued at ₹275 crores (report dated May 14, 2025)

• 43 additional units valued at ₹42 crores (report dated May 20, 2025)

ED’s Conditional Consent

While the ED did not oppose the substitution in principle, it laid down several pre-conditions, including:

1. Submission of No Encumbrance Certificate confirming unencumbered ownership.

2. Notarized Undertaking not to alienate the substituted assets during the proceedings.

3. Submission of Original Title Documents to the ED or court.

4. Furnishing of Indemnity Bond to cover any legal risks.

5. Protection of Third-Party Rights in the broader project.

6. Consent to Hand Over Possession in case attachment is confirmed.

7. Disclosure of Fund Sources for asset acquisition.

8. Full Cooperation with the Investigation by ED.

9. Non-prejudicial Clause — substitution not to affect the legality of original proceedings.

The petitioners formally agreed to these conditions through a sworn affidavit.

The court also made it clear that the order was passed in the specific facts of the case and should not be treated as a precedent in future matters.