Delhi High Court
Trinity Alternative Investment ... vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 28 June, 2023
$~4 to 7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 8/2023
TRINITY ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENT MANAGERS LTD.
..... PETITIONER
Through: Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Tannavi Sharma and
Ms. Anshika Bawa, Advocate.
versus
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT ..... RESPONDENT
Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel
for ED with Mr. Vivek Gurnani,
Mr. Kavish Garach and Ms. Sejal
Aneja, Advocates.
+ MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 9/2023
NEELINA CHATTERJEE ..... PETITIONER
Through: Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Tannavi Sharma and
Ms. Anshika Bawa, Advocate.
versus
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT ..... RESPONDENT
Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel
for ED with Mr. Vivek Gurnani,
Mr. Kavish Garach and Mr. Sejal
Aneja, Advocates.
+ MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 10/2023
SHILPA MODI ..... PETITIONER
Through: Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Tannavi Sharma and
Ms. Anshika Bawa, Advocate.
versus
MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 8/2023& Ors. Page1 of 4
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SUNIL
SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:28.06.2023
19:24:39
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT ..... RESPONDENT
Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel
for ED with Mr. Vivek Gurnani,
Mr. Kavish Garach and Mr. Sejal
Aneja, Advocates.
+ MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 11/2023
SATISH CHANDRA SAXENA
..... PETITIONER
Through: Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Tannavi Sharma and
Ms. Anshika Bawa, Advocate.
versus
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
..... RESPONDENT
Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel
for ED with Mr. Vivek Gurnani,
Mr. Kavish Garach and Mr. Sejal
Aneja, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 28.06.2023
per C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
CM APPL.32720/2023 & CM APPL.32721/2023 (exemption) in MISC.
APPEAL(PMLA) 8/2023
CM APPL.32723/2023 & CM APPL.32724/2023 (exemption) in MISC.
APPEAL(PMLA) 9/2023
CM APPL.32726/2023 & CM APPL.32727/2023 (exemption) in MISC.
APPEAL(PMLA) 10/2023
CM APPL.32729/2023 & CM APPL.32730/2023 (exemption) in MISC.
APPEAL(PMLA) 11/2023
MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 8/2023& Ors. Page2 of 4
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SUNIL
SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:28.06.2023
19:24:39
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 8/2023 & CM APPL.32719/2023 (stay); MISC.
APPEAL(PMLA)9/2023 & CM APPL.32722/2023 (stay); MISC.
APPEAL(PMLA) 10/2023 & CM APPL.32725/2023 (stay); MISC.
APPEAL(PMLA) 11/2023 & CM APPL.32728/2023 (stay)
1. At the outset, Mr. Vivek Gurnani, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent submits that the present appeals are not maintainable before this
Court. He has drawn our attention to Section 42 of the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002 ("the PMLA"), which reads thus:
"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 -
(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."
(Emphasis Supplied)
2. Mr. Gurnani, learned counsel submits that since the appellants are
situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Calcutta, these
appeals would have to be preferred before that Court.
MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 8/2023& Ors. Page3 of 4
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SUNIL
SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:28.06.2023
19:24:39
3. Mr. Mehta, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, with customary
candour, does not dispute the fact that the appellants are in fact situated within
the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Calcutta. He only submits that
in similar matters, this Court has issued notice.
4. In any event, in view of the frank admission that the appellants are in
fact situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Calcutta,
there is no escape from the rigour of Section 42 of the PMLA.
5. Reserving liberty to the appellantto move the appropriate Court, these
appeals are dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
(VACATION JUDGE)
MANOJ JAIN, J
(VACATION JUDGE)
JUNE 28, 2023
st
MISC. APPEAL(PMLA) 8/2023& Ors. Page4 of 4
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SUNIL
SINGH NEGI
Signing Date:28.06.2023
19:24:39
