In an appeal filed before the Delhi High Court under Section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) against an order dated 26-04-2024 by the Appellate Tribunal under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA), dismissing the appellant’s appeal, a Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja dismissed the appeal as the same was not maintainable for lack of territorial jurisdiction.
The respondent objected, stating that not only was the appellant situated in Mumbai, but the entire proceedings had also taken place in Maharashtra and that this Court’s jurisdiction had been invoked only because the Appellate Tribunal was situated in Delhi. The appellant responded that he was working in Delhi, which, he argued, gave the Court territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present appeal.
The Court perused Section 42 of the PMLA and stated that only the High Court where the aggrieved party resides, carries on business, or works for gain has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. It was said that merely because the Court entertained an earlier appeal filed by the appellant without an objection on maintainability, would not vest jurisdiction in this Court. Hence, the Court stated that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present appeal.
Thus, the appeal was dismissed, but the Court left it open for the appellant to avail its remedies before a court of appropriate jurisdiction.
Appearances:
For Appellant – Ms. Shruti Raina, Ms. Priyal Sarawagi, Mr. Vansh Dhall
For Respondents – Mr. Anurag Jain
