Full Judgment Text
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 20.02.2026
+ MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 9/2024
JM FINANCIAL ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY
LIMITED .....Appellant
Through: Ms.Shruti Raina, Ms.Priyal
Sarawagi and Mr.Vansh Dhall,
Advs.
versus
DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF
ENFORCEMENT, MUMBAI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Anurag Jain, Adv. for
ED/R-1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
1. This appeal has been filed under Section 42 of the Prevention
of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘PMLA’),
challenging the order dated 26.04.2024 passed by the learned
Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA, New Delhi in Appeal bearing
No. FPA-PMLA-3223/MUM/2019, dismissing the appeal filed by the
appellant herein with the following direction:
“32. It is however clarified that the outcome
of the appeal would not affect the right of the
appellant ultimately if the subject property is
taken under section 8 (8) of the Act of 2002,
rather they would be at liberty to make rightful
claim under section 8 (8) of the Act of 2002. In
Signature Not Verified
Page 1 of 5
MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 9/2024
Digitally Signed
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:21.02.2026
17:40:55
case of acquittal of the accused, resulting in
re-release of property from attachment, again
the appellants can pursue their rights for
which this order would not come in their
way.”
2. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 raises a
preliminary objection on the maintainability of the present appeal
before this Court. He submits that not only is the appellant, even as
per the Memo of Parties, situated in Mumbai, the entire proceedings
have also taken place in Maharashtra. He submits that the jurisdiction
of this Court has been invoked only because the Appellate Tribunal is
situated at Delhi and certain previous appeals had been filed before
this Court, wherein no objection to the maintainability of the same had
been taken by the respondent, however, the same cannot vest
jurisdiction in this Court.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the appellant submits
that the appellant is also working for gain in Delhi, because of which,
this Court would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present
appeal in terms of Explanation attached to Section 42 of the PMLA.
4. She further submits that a part of cause of action has arisen
within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, inasmuch as, the
learned Appellate Tribunal has passed its order at Delhi.
5. Lastly, she submits that this Court had entertained the previous
appeal, that is, MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 1/2021, titled JM Financial
Asset Reconstruction Company Limited v. Deputy Director,
Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai & Anr. & Ors. , and disposed of
the same by its judgment dated 04.05.2022. At that stage, no objection
Signature Not Verified
Page 2 of 5
MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 9/2024
Digitally Signed
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:21.02.2026
17:40:55
to the maintainability of the appeal was taken and, therefore, it is now
too late for the respondent to raise this objection.
6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsels for the parties.
7. The Memo of Parties itself reflects that the appellant is situated
and working for gain at Mumbai. It is only on the objection being
taken by the respondent that the plea of the appellant working for gain
in Delhi has been taken.
8. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by
making the following averment in the appeal:
“7. Respondent No. 1 is located within the
territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court
and the Appellate Tribunal is located within
the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble
Court. Further, as mentioned hereinabove, the
previous appeal filed by the Appellant under
Section 42 of the PMLA was also filed before
this Hon’ble Court in very same matter and
was finally decided. Hence, this Hon’ble Court
has the jurisdiction to hear the present matter
and grant the reliefs being sought herein.”
9. Section 42 of the PMLA reads as under:
“42. Appeal to High Court .-- Any person
aggrieved by any decision or order of the
Appellate Tribunal may file an appeal to the
High Court within sixty days from the date of
communication of the decision or order of the
Appellate Tribunal to him on any question of
law or fact arising out of such order: Provided
that the High Court may, if it is satisfied that
the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause
from filing the appeal within the said period,
allow it to be filed within a further period not
exceeding sixty days.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section,
“High Court” means—
Signature Not Verified
Page 3 of 5
MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 9/2024
Digitally Signed
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:21.02.2026
17:40:55
(i) the High Court within the jurisdiction of
which the aggrieved party ordinarily resides
or carries on business or personally works for
gain; and
(ii) where the Central Government is the
aggrieved party, the High Court within the
jurisdiction of which the respondent, or in a
case where there are more than one
respondent, any of the respondents, ordinarily
resides or carries on business or personally
works for gain.”
10. A reading of the above provision would show that it is only the
High Court where the aggrieved party is residing or carrying on
business or personally working for gain, that would have jurisdiction
to entertain the appeal. Mere presence of the learned Appellate
Tribunal at Delhi would not vest this Court with the territorial
jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.
11. Even otherwise, the cause of action for filing of the appeal arose
within the State of Maharashtra, and this is not disputed by the
appellant.
12. Merely because this Court entertained the earlier appeal filed by
the appellant, without an objection being raised on its maintainability
by the respondent, would not vest jurisdiction in this Court. It is a
well-settled law that parties cannot vest jurisdiction in a Court, which
otherwise lacks jurisdiction, by their consent. The jurisdiction of this
Court has to be determined in terms of the statutory provisions for the
same. As noted hereinabove, in view of the Explanation attached to
Section 42 of the PMLA, this Court, would lack territorial jurisdiction
to entertain the present appeal.
13. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. However, we leave it
Signature Not Verified
Page 4 of 5
MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 9/2024
Digitally Signed
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:21.02.2026
17:40:55
open to the appellant to avail of its remedies in accordance with law
before a Court of appropriate jurisdiction.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J
FEBRUARY 20, 2026/sg/ik
Signature Not Verified
Page 5 of 5
MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 9/2024
Digitally Signed
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:21.02.2026
17:40:55