Dismissed

Anup Kumar Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement

Delhi HC19 Feb 2026MISC. APPEAL(PMLA)/55/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed a money laundering appeal for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Court held that the appellant's ordinary residence and place where he worked for gain remained Kolkata, rendering the Delhi High Court incompetent to entertain the appeal despite the appellant's claims regarding a firm's GST registration.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction; appellant is left to remedies before the Court of appropriate jurisdiction.

Anup Kumar Singh Vs Directorate of Enforcement — Money Laundering | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~24

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of decision: 19^th February, 2026

¶4

MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 55/2025 ANUP KUMAR SINGH .....Appellant Through: Mr. Hardik Sharma and Mr. Abhinav Jain, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

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.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

¶8

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

¶9

This appeal has been filed under Section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [hereinafter, “ PMLA ”], challenging the order dated 26^th 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 20^th October, 2023 passed by the learned Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA, as being barred by limitation.

¶10

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has raised a

¶11

Signature Not Verified

¶12

Page 1 of 5

¶13

Signed By:VAISHALI MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 55/2025 PRUTHI Signing Da te:2 1.02.2026 15:32

¶14

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.

¶15

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 the GST registration in favor of M/s Stellar Insolvency Professionals LLP, which gives the address of principal place of business as Delhi for the said firm.

¶16

The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant is a partner in the said firm and the said firm was respondent no.2 in the Original Application filed by the respondent before the Adjudicating Authority, being O.A. No. 889/2023. He also places reliance on the judgment of this Court in Financial Intelligence UnitIND vs. National Spot Exchange Ltd [2019: DHC:3113] and the judgment of the High Court of Madras in M/s Martin Property Developers Private Limited and Ors. Vs Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement. (Judgment dated 17^th June, 2021 in Review Application No. 21/2021 in W.P. (C) 25231/2019).

¶17

We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

¶18

It is not denied by the appellant that the subject matter of the

¶19

Signature Not Verified

¶20

Page 2 of 5

¶21

Signed By:VAISHALI MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 55/2025 PRUTHI Signing Da te:2 1.02.2026 15:32

¶22

seizure is all situated at Kolkata. The search and seizure proceedings were also carried out at Kolkata. The appellant has himself given his address at Kolkata

¶23

Section 42 of the PMLA reads as under:-

¶24

“Section 42-Appeal to High Court.-Any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal may file an appeal to the High Court within sixty days from the date of communication of the decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal to him on any question of law or fact arising out of such order: Provided that the High Court may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days. Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, "High Court" means--

¶25

(i) the High Court within the jurisdiction of which the aggrieved party ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain; and (ii) where the Central Government is the aggrieved party, the High Court within the jurisdiction of which the respondent, or in a case where there are more than one respondent, any of the respondents, ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain.”

¶26

A reading of the above would show that an appeal shall be maintainable under the said Section before a High Court within whose jurisdiction the aggrieved party “ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain”.

¶27

In the present case, by giving his own address at Kolkata, the appellant admits that he ordinarily resides in Kolkata.

¶28

The learned counsel for the appellant, in spite of the above, to

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Page 3 of 5

¶31

Signed By:VAISHALI MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 55/2025 PRUTHI Signing Da te:2 1.02.2026 15:32

¶32

maintain the present appeal, states that the appellant ordinarily carries on business and works for gain in Delhi. And for this purpose, as noted hereinabove, he has merely relied upon the GST registration certificate without having any other averment or proof in this regard. 11. In the present appeal, the territorial jurisdiction of this Court is invoked by the appellant by stating as under:-

¶33

“4.3 Pertinently, the Appellant resides in Kolkata, however works for gain in Delhi. Pertinently, the Appellant herein is a resolution professional and appears before the NCLT Delhi. Moreover, the Appellant has his office situated at Delhi, copy of the GST registration certificate of the office of the Appellant in the name and style of Stellar Insolvency Professionals LLP is marked and annexed herewith as Annexure-15. Further the copy of the partnership deed dated 16.08.2021 showing that the Appellant herein is a partner in M/s Stellar insolvency LLP is marked and annexed herewith as Annexure-16.”

¶34

As far as reliance on the appellant being a partner in the firm, that is M/s Stellar insolvency LLP, the appellant has himself annexed a copy of the partnership deed, according to which, the partnership is registered at Kolkata. In terms of clause 6.1, the registered office address of the said partnership firm is in Kolkata and so is its principal place of business. While clause 6.2 states that it may have various branch offices, in our view, the ordinary place of business of the firm is again at Kolkata.

¶35

As far the averment of the appellant that he appears in the NCLT, it would again not mean that he ‘ordinarily’ works for gain within the jurisdiction of this Court.

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

Page 4 of 5

¶38

Signed By:VAISHALI MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 55/2025 PRUTHI Signing Da te:2 1.02.2026 15:32

¶39

The judgments sought to be relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, are clearly distinguishable on their facts. 15. In view of the above, we find that the appellant not only ordinarily resides in Kolkata, but also works for gain at Kolkata. 16. This Court therefore, lacks the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. The appellant is, however, left to his remedies to avail before the Court of appropriate jurisdiction.

¶40

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

¶41

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J

¶42

FEBRUARY 19, 2026/ vd/ma/pb

¶43

Signature Not Verified

¶44

5 of 5

¶45

Signed By:VAISHALI MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 55/2025 PRUTHI Signing Da te:2 1.02.2026 15:32

Anup Kumar Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anup Kumar Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gargi Mallick Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Shiv Jeet Vs State of NCT of Delhi

V Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Shruti Kumari Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Neetu Tomar Vs the Union of India & Ors.

Punjab National Bank Vs the Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement Srinagar and Ors.