Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 19.02.2026
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK .....Appellant
Through: Mr.Keshav Thakur, Mr.Rajesh Chauhan, Mr.Mahesh Prasad, Mr.Prithvi Thakur and
Ms.Aayushi Meena, Advs.
Through: Mr.Rahul Tyagi, SC (ED) with Ms.Priya Rai, Mr.Karan
Grover, Mr.Aniket Kumar Singh, Mr.Priyansh Raj Singh, Mr.Pawan Gangwal and
Ms.Bhawna Gandhi, Advs.
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 14.06.2024 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA in FPA-PMLA-2734/SNR/2018 titled Punjab National Bank v. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Srinagar.
2. The learned counsel for the respondents raises a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the present appeal before this Court, by contending that not only the entire cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, but also the appellant itself is situated in Jammu, as would be evident from the Memo of Parties.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant, on the other hand, submits that as the Tribunal is situated in Delhi and even the Adjudicating Authority is situated in Delhi, this Court would have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present appeal.
4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.
5. Section 42 of the PMLA reads as under:
6. A reading of the above would clearly show that it is only the High Court where the aggrieved party ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, which will have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. As the Memo of Parties itself shows that the concerned branch of the appellant is situated at Jammu, we find merit in the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents.
7. Accordingly, the appeal along with the pending application is dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction. However, we grant liberty to the appellant to avail of its remedies in accordance with law before the court of competent jurisdiction.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J RAVINDER DUDEJA, J FEBRUARY 19, 2026/ns/pb