Shapoorji Pallonji case: Bombay HC orders ED to share interest with Armed Forces Welfare Fund

Bombay High Court in Mumbai | Photo credit: VIVEK BENDRE

A bench of Justices AS Gadkari and RR Bhonsale gave the direction while dismissing an appeal filed by the ED against a 2019 order of the Court of Appeal quashing attachment of assets worth ₹141.50 crore of Shapoorji Pallonji & Company Ltd (SPCL).

The HC had stayed the tribunal’s order after the ED filed an appeal in 2019, but directed the central agency to deposit ₹46.5 crore with the court.

In its final order dated December 23, 2025, a copy of which was made available this week, the High Court upheld the tribunal’s decision and ordered it to return the amount deposited to SPCL.

The bank also directed that 50 per cent of interest on ₹46.5 crore should be paid to the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund.

The court said it passed such an order keeping in view the dedication of Indian soldiers and the casualties they suffer while serving the country.

“There is an urgent and urgent need to take care of the families and widows of the soldiers who lost their lives on the battlefield and in protecting the borders of the nation,” the HC said.

The sacrifices of the soldiers had been taken into account as well as the difficulties faced by the widows and families of the soldiers who lost their lives while serving the country, the court said.

“We, therefore, deem it appropriate to transfer 50 percent of the accrued interest to the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund. We do so in a manner and with the aim of balancing the shares,” the HC noted.

The case related to the money SPCL paid to Nilesh Thakur and his companies from 2005 under an agreement to buy 900 hectares of land in Alibaug and Pen for ₹30 lakh per hectare.

The ED alleged that these payments were “proceeds of crime” related to a disproportionate assets case against Thakur, a civil servant.

SPCL disputed the seizure, pointing out that the money was paid under a land purchase agreement and recorded as income tax advances. The company also argued that Thakur was on “unauthorized leave” for nearly four years and was not performing any public duties when the payments were made.

In January 2019, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act Tribunal accepted SPCL’s arguments and ordered the release of the seized properties, ruling that the money could not be treated as proceeds of crime.

Published on January 14, 2026