Nav Nirman Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India 2026 INSC 130 - S.8 PMLA
Prevention of Money‑Laundering Act, 2002 – Section 8 - Section 8(7) and Section 8(8) of the PMLA are stand-alone provisions - Section 8(7) of the PMLA gets attracted only in case of a contingency and an application under the said provision can be decided by the Special Court only once the confirmation order attains finality - The expression “material before it” occurring in Section 8(7) of the PMLA has a limited import to the extent of showing the contingency and the entitlement to possession as regards the Director or any third party. In case of a party who has suffered an adverse order under Section 8(3) of the PMLA, relief under Section 8(7) of the PMLA can be sought for, provided there is new material that was not placed before or considered by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 8(3) of the PMLA, or by the higher forums, if so challenged - An application under the second proviso to Section 8(8) of the PMLA can only be filed subject to satisfying the essential conditions laid down by Rules 2(b) and 3A of the 2016 Rules. (Para 52)
Case Info
Case name: M/s. Nav Nirman Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director, Naveen Singh v. Union of India through Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Govt. of India, Ranchi, Jharkhand
Neutral citation: 2026 INSC 130
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. M. Sundresh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Judgment date: 06 February 2026, New Delhi
Statutes / laws referred:Prevention of Money‑Laundering Act, 2002 – particularly Sections 2(1)(u), 3, 5, 8(1)–(8), 9, 13, 17, 18, 24, 25, 26, 35, 42, 58‑B, 60(2‑A), 73, 74; Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 193, 228; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 345, 346, 482; Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 – Section 12; Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Sections 68‑F, 68‑I, 68‑K(1), 68‑L (via SAFEMA); Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (via Section 12 SAFEMA); Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 123, 124; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – generally (procedure reference).
Caselaws and citations referred:Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (2023) 12 SCC 1; Attorney General for India v. Amratlal Prajivandas, (1994) 5 SCC 54 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1325; Raman Tech. & Process Engg. Co. v. Solanki Traders, (2008) 2 SCC 302 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 539; Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Delhi v. Axis Bank & Ors., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7854.
Brief summary :The Supreme Court examined the scope of Section 8 PMLA, especially Sections 8(7) and 8(8), in the context of properties attached as “proceeds of crime” (or their value) arising from a road construction scam, where those properties were in the name of Nav Nirman Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd., which itself was not an accused. It held that an application under Section 8(7) can be decided by the Special Court only after the attachment order under Section 8(3) has attained finality (applying the doctrine of merger), and that restoration under Section 8(8) read with the 2016 Rules is confined to third‑party claimants who acted in good faith, suffered quantifiable loss due to money‑laundering, and are not involved in the offence. The Court set aside the Special Court’s confiscation order under Section 8(7) and the High Court’s affirmance, as well as the Appellate Tribunal’s order dismissing the company’s appeal as infructuous, and directed that the company’s appeal against the Section 8(3) order be decided on merits while keeping the Section 8(7) application pending until that challenge is finally resolved.