Delhi HC refuses to halt ED probe against Experion Developers
The Delhi High Court on Friday declined to grant any interim relief to Experion Developers Pvt Ltd and its co-petitioner in their petition seeking to quash FIR number 64/2026 registered by the Economic Offences Wing, Delhi, for alleged offences under Section 120B read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
In a significant setback for the petitioners, the Court presided over by Justice Girish Kathpalia expressly refused to stay the investigation. The Court recorded that it was not inclined to stay the probe — noting the nascent stage of the investigation — without first hearing both sides at length. A Status Report has been directed to be filed within four weeks.
The petitioners had additionally sought no-coercive-process relief — effectively, anticipatory protection from arrest. The Court refused to grant this relief as well. It merely clarified in procedural terms that pendency of the petition would not prevent the petitioners from filing separate appropriate proceedings if so advised — a standard observation that confers no substantive protection.
The FIR arises in the context of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of Dignity Buildcon Pvt Ltd (DBPL), which owns approximately 9.32 acres of prime land in Sector 62, Golf Course Extension Road, Gurugram — a property independently valued at over Rs 630 crore.
The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) is investigating whether the resolution process was manipulated to allow the acquisition of this asset at a fraction of its market value through a series of structured financial flows.
Experion Developers Pvt Ltd (EDPL), the Successful Resolution Applicant under the DBPL CIRP, is alleged to have acquired the corporate debtor — and the land vesting in it — for a nominal consideration of Re. 1 plus Rs 47 crore in non-convertible debentures, even as a circular financial flow of approximately Rs 445 crore was structured through related entities.
The net economic cost to the acquirer group is alleged to have been negligible relative to the underlying asset value.
Counsel for the ED informed the Court that the FIR — which is only a few days old — is at an early and active stage of investigation. The ED further disclosed that it has already filed an application before the appropriate forum for recall of the resolution process, though notice on that application is yet to be issued.
Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners had advanced three preliminary arguments: first, that the ED had no power to cause registration of an FIR; second, that a completed CIRP cannot be reopened as a matter of law; and third, that the FIR does not disclose any cognisable offence. None of these contentions found favour with the Court at the threshold stage. The Court declined to entertain a stay on these grounds without hearing the matter fully, and relisted the case to 14 May 2026.
The petitioners had also alleged that the investigation was being pursued at the behest of competing business entities.
The Court made no adverse observation on the ED’s conduct and proceeded to direct a Status Report — indicating that it finds the matter worthy of a full hearing on the merits.
