A bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath, however, said the March 23 provisional attachment order (PAO) would continue till April 26.
"Call for order on April 26. Till such time, the impugned provisional attachment order shall continue," the bench said.
During the hearing, senior advocate Amit Sibal, appearing for Virbhadra's daughter Aparajita Kumari and son Vikramaditya Singh, questioned the PAO saying such action cannot be taken in the absence of a charge sheet against his clients.
"The PAO was reasoned. This is not a case to grant any interim order," he said.
More From This Section
During the hearing, the bench asked, "What is the effect of the provisional attachment? How does it affect the party?"
Responding to the query, the ASG said, "they cannot sell the properties which have been provisionally attached."
The petitioners have sought stay on the March 23 PAO of the ED, saying it has "exceeded its jurisdiction".
The second proviso of section 5(1) of PMLA provides that any property of a person may be attached if ED's concerned officer has reasons to believe, on the basis of material in his possession, that if such property allegedly involved in money-laundering is not attached immediately, it is likely to frustrate any proceeding under the Act.
The petitioners have claimed that they were not named as accused in the ED's ECIR filed in the case and the March 23 order was passed but no scheduled offence has been alleged against them.
The plea said the basis of passing PAO under PMLA are the Income Tax department's inquiries and investigation "which itself are under challenge and are not conclusive of any allegation" made against them.