ANUP KUMAR SINGH vs DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Judgment text excerpt

$~24 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 19th February, 2026 + MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 55/2025 ANUP KUMAR SINGH .....Appellant Through: Mr. Hardik Sharma and Mr. Abhinav Jain, Advocates. versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Panel Counsel for ED with Mr. Kanishk Maurya and Mr. Ch. Abhinandan Patra, Advocates. Mr. Vikas Azad, Advocate for R-2. 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, “PMLA”], challenging the order dated 26th May, 2025 passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA in FPA-PMLA-1885/HYD/2024, by which the learned Appellate Tribunal has been pleased to dismiss the appeal filed by the appellant against the attachment order dated 20th October, 2023 passed by the learned Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA, as being barred by limitation. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has raised a Signature Not Verified Signed By:VAISHALIMISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 55/2025 Page 1 of 5 PRUTHI Signing Date:21.02.2026 15:32 preliminary objection on the maintainability of the present appeal before this Court, stating therein that no part of cause of action has arisen in Delhi, and the appellant is a resident of Kolkata and works for gain in Kolkata. Therefore, in terms of Explanation (a) attached to Section 42 of the PMLA, the appeal would not be maintainable before this Court. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that though the appellant is a resident of Kolkata, he also works for gain at Delhi, that is within the jurisdiction of this Court. In support of this submission, he places reliance on t