Territorial Jurisdiction requires ordinary residence or ordinary place of business to sustain a High Court appeal; mere GST or appearances insufficient.

Whether an appeal under Section 42 PMLA is maintainable turns on territorial jurisdiction determined by where the aggrieved person 'ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain.' The court held the appellant's declared Kolkata address, seizure locus, and partnership deed locating the principal place of business in Kolkata establish ordinary residence and business there; mere GST registration or sporadic appearances within this Court's territory do not suffice to show ordinary carrying on of business or personal work for gain in this jurisdiction. Outcome: appeal not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction and dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal under Section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is maintainable before this High Court on the ground that the appellant "ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain" within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

Analysis: Section 42 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 provides that an appeal to the High Court is maintainable within the jurisdiction where the aggrieved person ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. The material facts show that the appellant has given his address as Kolkata and the subject matter of seizure, as well as search and seizure proceedings, are situated in Kolkata. The partnership deed annexed by the appellant records the registered office and principal place of business of the partnership in Kolkata, with provision for branch offices; this establishes the ordinary place of residence and ordinary place of business as Kolkata. A GST registration alone, without further averments or proof that the appellant ordinarily carries on business or personally works for gain within this Court's territorial limits, is insufficient to establish jurisdiction. The appellant's appearances before fora located in this Court's territory do not, on their own, demonstrate that he "ordinarily" works for gain within the jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The appeal is not maintainable before this High Court for want of territorial jurisdiction and is dismissed.

---