PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK vs THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT SRINAGAR AND ORS

Judgment text excerpt

$~23 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 19.02.2026 + MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 49/2024 & CM APPL. 76423/2024 PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK .....Appellant Through: Mr.Keshav Thakur, Mr.Rajesh Chauhan, Mr.Mahesh Prasad, Mr.Prithvi Thakur and Ms.Aayushi Meena, Advs. versus THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT SRINAGAR AND ORS .....Respondents 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. 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 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. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 49/2024 Page 1 of 3 By:REYMON VASHIST Signing Date:21.02.2026 17:32:08 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