Bombay HC stays ED's PMLA attachment in ICICI-Videocon case

What the Record Shows

The Directorate of Enforcement's provisional attachment order dated 10 January 2020 attached assets valued at about Rs 74.54 crore held by NuPower Renewables Pvt Ltd and connected entities, on the allegation that Rs 64 crore of that sum was "proceeds of crime" traceable to loans ICICI Bank sanctioned to the Videocon group while Chanda Kochhar was the bank's managing director and chief executive. A provisional attachment under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, is a preventive step to preserve property during an investigation; it is not a finding of guilt.

The PMLA Adjudicating Authority declined to confirm the attachment in 2020. On 3 July 2025, in FPA-PMLA-3802/DLI/2020, the PMLA Appellate Tribunal set that decision aside, held on a prima facie basis that Rs 64 crore constituted proceeds of crime and upheld the ED's attachment. Most recently, on 8 May 2026 the Bombay High Court granted an interim stay of the operation of that attachment order and directed the ED not to take possession of the properties, pending its hearing of the Kochhars' appeal.

The Kochhars have denied any wrongdoing throughout, maintaining that the loans were collective decisions of ICICI Bank's credit committee and that there was no quid pro quo. No court has convicted anyone in the matter, and the CBI's criminal case, registered in 2019, remains at the trial stage.

How It Worked

The case turns on an alleged quid pro quo. Per the CBI's first information report (RC BD1/2019/E/0001) registered on 22 January 2019 and its 2022 chargesheet, ICICI Bank sanctioned loans totalling around Rs 3,250 crore to Videocon group companies during the period Chanda Kochhar sat on the sanctioning committees, and Rs 64 crore was subsequently routed to NuPower Renewables, a company associated with her husband Deepak Kochhar. The CBI chargesheet names Chanda Kochhar, Deepak Kochhar and Videocon promoter Venugopal Dhoot among the accused.

The ED's money-laundering case, built on that FIR, alleges that the Rs 64 crore represented the layering of proceeds of crime into NuPower. In its provisional attachment the ED valued the attached NuPower assets at about Rs 74.54 crore. Before the Appellate Tribunal, the Kochhars argued that the loan sanction had been a collective credit-committee decision and that most of the attached property had been bought with separate, legitimate bank borrowings rather than the Rs 64 crore. The tribunal, per its 3 July 2025 order, rejected that defence at the prima facie stage and restored the attachment.

The procedural history runs in a straight line but has doubled back at several points: the FIR in 2019, the ED's provisional attachment in January 2020, the Adjudicating Authority's refusal to confirm it later that year, the CBI chargesheet in 2022, the Appellate Tribunal's order upholding the attachment in July 2025, and the Bombay High Court's interim stay in May 2026. Running alongside, the December 2022 arrests of the Kochhars were themselves challenged and set aside within weeks.

Who Lost Money

The alleged loss in this matter is framed around the integrity of a bank's lending rather than a pool of retail depositors who handed money to a scheme. The underlying exposure the CBI points to is the roughly Rs 3,250 crore ICICI Bank lent to the Videocon group; the ED's proceeds-of-crime figure is the narrower Rs 64 crore said to have reached NuPower. Both figures are allegations that the trial court and the appellate proceedings have yet to test on their merits.

Those the record identifies as affected are ICICI Bank's shareholders and depositors and, the agencies argue, the wider banking system's confidence in the conflict-of-interest controls at the top of a large private bank. ICICI Bank itself, after an internal inquiry led by a former Supreme Court judge, treated Chanda Kochhar's 2018 exit as a termination for cause and moved to claw back bonuses, a civil and employment consequence separate from the criminal and PMLA proceedings.

No sum has been recovered from anyone as a proven loss. The Rs 74.54 crore of attached NuPower assets is preserved, not forfeited: an attachment freezes property so it cannot be dissipated, and only a special court can order confiscation, and only if the money-laundering charge is ultimately proved.

Where It Stands Now

The current position has moved since the attachment was last confirmed. Although the PMLA Appellate Tribunal upheld the ED's attachment on 3 July 2025, the Bombay High Court on 8 May 2026 stayed the operation of that order and barred the ED from taking possession of the NuPower properties, listing the Kochhars' appeal, Criminal Appeal (Stamp) No. 19027 of 2025, for further hearing. As matters stand, the attachment is under an interim stay and the appeal is undecided.

On the criminal side, the Bombay High Court had on 9 January 2023 held that the CBI's December 2022 arrest of Chanda and Deepak Kochhar was contrary to Sections 41 and 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, describing the arrest memo as "casual, mechanical and perfunctory," and released them on bail. The CBI has challenged that ruling and the Supreme Court has issued notice; that challenge is pending. The criminal trial on the 2022 chargesheet has not concluded.

A provisional attachment contains allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues. Nothing in the PMLA or CBI proceedings has resulted in a conviction of any of the accused.

What It Means

The matter has become a reference point for how India treats conflicts of interest at the top of a bank, and for what a PMLA attachment actually does. An attachment is often reported as though it were a verdict; it is not. It is a freeze that keeps disputed property in place while the courts decide whether it is tainted, and it can be confirmed, released, stayed or set aside at several stages, as this case's back-and-forth demonstrates.

For anyone trying to read such news accurately, the practical lesson is to separate the stages. An FIR and a chargesheet are accusations; a provisional attachment is a preventive freeze; an appellate tribunal ruling on that attachment is a decision about the freeze, not about criminal guilt; and only a trial court's judgment settles guilt. Several outlets described the July 2025 tribunal order as a finding that a bribe had been accepted, a characterisation the order itself does not make.

For the wider pattern of PMLA attachments and how they are contested on appeal, Oquilia's enforcement archive collects comparable matters, among them the ED's Rs 370 crore Vauld crypto freeze, now under PMLA appeal and the Karvy client-securities attachment.

FAQ

Does this mean the people named are guilty?

No. A provisional attachment and a CBI chargesheet contain allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues. No court has convicted Chanda Kochhar, Deepak Kochhar or Venugopal Dhoot in this matter, and the criminal trial has not concluded.

What exactly did the ED attach?

The ED's provisional attachment order of 10 January 2020 attached assets valued at about Rs 74.54 crore held by NuPower Renewables Pvt Ltd and related entities, alleging that Rs 64 crore of it was proceeds of crime linked to ICICI Bank's loans to the Videocon group. An attachment freezes property; it does not transfer ownership or establish guilt.

Is the attachment currently in force?

It is under an interim stay. The PMLA Appellate Tribunal upheld the attachment on 3 July 2025, but the Bombay High Court on 8 May 2026 stayed the order's operation and barred the ED from taking possession, pending the Kochhars' appeal. The appeal is undecided.

Did the tribunal rule that Chanda Kochhar was guilty?

No. The PMLA Appellate Tribunal's 3 July 2025 order upheld the ED's attachment on a prima facie view that Rs 64 crore was proceeds of crime; that is a decision about the property, not a criminal verdict. Only the trial courts can decide guilt in the CBI and money-laundering cases, and they have not ruled.

What happened with the arrests?

The Bombay High Court held on 9 January 2023 that the CBI's December 2022 arrest of the Kochhars did not comply with Sections 41 and 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and released them. The CBI has challenged that ruling before the Supreme Court, which has issued notice; that challenge is pending.

Where can I read the official record?

The Bombay High Court's 8 May 2026 interim order and its 9 January 2023 order on the arrests are on Indian Kanoon, linked below. The Appellate Tribunal's 3 July 2025 order is referenced in the High Court appeal record under FPA-PMLA-3802/DLI/2020.

This report is based on the Bombay High Court's interim order dated 8 May 2026 in Criminal Appeal (Stamp) No. 19027 of 2025 and its order dated 9 January 2023 on the arrests, reviewed on 31 July 2026.