Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 20.02.2026
JM FINANCIAL ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED .....Appellant
Through: Ms.Shruti Raina, Ms.Priyal Sarawagi and Mr.Vansh Dhall, Advs.
Through: Mr.Anurag Jain, Adv. for ED/R-1
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
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:
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 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:
9. Section 42 of the PMLA reads as under:
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 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