Shilpa Shetty, Raj Kundra get interim relief from Bombay High Court against ED eviction notices

The Bombay High Court on Thursday said it would extend interim protection to Bollywood actor Shilpa Shetty and her husband Raj Kundra, while they challenge eviction notices issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) before an appellate authority under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

This was after the ED assured the Court that it would not act on the eviction notices issued against the couple for now, while the couple files their stay application before the PMLA appellate authority.

The Bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and PK Chavan allowed the couple to file their stay application and clarified that no action will be taken on the eviction notices until the appellate authority decides on their appeal.

This High Court order of stay will remain in effect until the appellate authority in Delhi decides on the couple's plea against a PMLA tribunal's September 18 order against them.

Additionally, the Court said that if an adverse ruling is made against the couple by the appellate authority, it will not be enforced for another two weeks.

The couple had moved the High Court challenging ED notices dated September 27 which were issued against the couple's residential properties in Mumbai's Juhu area and a bungalow near Pawna Dam.

The notices were issued following the provisional attachment of their assets by the ED in connection with an alleged Ponzi scheme involving crypto assets.

In their petition, through advocate Prashant Patil, the couple described the eviction notices as a "meaningless, reckless and arbitrary act."

The notices, which were served on October 3, demanded that they vacate their properties—both their Mumbai residence and the Pune farmhouse—within ten days.

The case dates back to 2018 when the ED initiated an investigation into Amit Bharadwaj regarding a Ponzi scheme. Although Shetty and Kundra were not named as accused in the initial case or the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR), they received a notice in April 2024 stating that their assets were being provisionally attached.

The couple claims they have been fully cooperative throughout the ED’s investigation, with Kundra attending multiple summons in person and Shetty providing necessary documentation through her authorized representative.

Despite their compliance, the provisional attachment was confirmed on September 18 and it was to remain in effect until the trial concludes.

Their petition argued that under the PMLA they had a 45-day window to challenge this confirmation order. However, on October 3, 2024, they were served with an eviction notice dated September 27, 2024, demanding they vacate their residences.

Shetty and Kundra argued that the eviction notices, issued solely based on the September 18 order, infringed on their rights, especially given their long-standing residence in the properties.

Additionally, the couple asserted that their assets were acquired through legitimate means and that they are not beneficiaries of any alleged proceeds of crime. They, therefore, urged the Court to quash the eviction notices, emphasizing their intention to contest the ED's actions