☰
×

Delhi High Court Requests ED's Response in Money Laundering Case Involving Raheja Developers

The Delhi High Court has instructed the Enforcement Directorate to respond to a petition from Nayan Raheja, son of the Raheja Developers chairman, regarding a money laundering case. The case involves allegations of delayed flat deliveries to around 4,600 buyers and misappropriation of funds. The court has scheduled a hearing for October 15, as the petitioner argues that the legal actions against him lack basis and violate constitutional rights. This case highlights significant issues surrounding real estate transactions and legal accountability.
By Narendra Chaudhary Aug 1, 2026, 06:30 IST

Court Orders ED to Respond to Raheja's Petition

The Delhi High Court has directed the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to present its stance regarding a petition filed by Nayan Raheja, the son of the chairman of Raheja Developers, seeking the dismissal of a money laundering case. This case pertains to the delayed delivery of flats to approximately 4,600 homebuyers in 2022. Justice Purushendra Kumar Kaurav issued a notice to the investigative agency and the central government, stating, 'They should receive instructions and submit a status report.'

In an order dated July 30, the judge acknowledged the petitioner's assurance of full cooperation with the ED.


The case is scheduled for a hearing on October 15. Allegations suggest that Raheja Developers Limited collected ₹2,699.13 crore from around 4,600 homebuyers, but misappropriated ₹1,353.26 crore for purposes other than construction. The petitioner is accused of receiving ₹1.23 crore from the proceeds of crime.


Senior advocate Vikas Pahwa represented the petitioner in court. As a professional architect, he argued that continuing proceedings against him in the absence of any established crime or criminal intent constitutes a gross misuse of legal process, violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

The petition filed by the law firm Karanjawala & Company claims that the petitioner was named as an accused in the ECIR, despite the police having already exonerated him in two of the three original FIRs, and a charge sheet was filed without including him as an accused. Furthermore, it was noted that a settlement had been reached in the third FIR with the complainant.