The Calcutta High Court held that serving summons or notices through electronic mail amounts to valid service under proceedings governed by the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The ruling reinforces digital communication as effective in PMLA cases.
The Calcutta High Court held that serving summons or notices by electronic mail constitutes valid service in proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
The Court noted that the statutory framework regulating proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority expressly recognises service by electronic communication.
The matter before the Court involved a writ petition challenging a show-cause notice issued under Section 8(1) of the PMLA and seeking production of the “Relied Upon Documents” used in the Adjudicating Authority proceedings.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Reconstitutes Bench to Review ED’s Powers Under PMLA
A Bench led by Justice Krishna Rao, while construing Rule 13 of the Adjudicating Authority (Procedure) Regulations, 2013, observed,
“In the present case, notice was served upon the petitioner through email. As per Sub Section 11 of Section 13 summons or notice served through electronic mode, as provided under Section 13 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, has been regarded as a valid service. Thus, there is no doubt that service of notice upon the petitioner through email is valid.”
Senior Advocate Raj Mohan Chattoraj represented the petitioner; Senior Advocate Vipul Kundalia appeared for the respondents.
The petitioner sought quashing of a show-cause notice dated 25 November 2025 issued under Section 8(1) of the PMLA and asked for directions to furnish all “Relied Upon Documents” relied upon by the Enforcement Directorate in the Adjudicating Authority proceedings.
The issue arose after a search at the petitioner’s residence during which cash amounting to Rs.25,50,000, along with certain digital devices and papers, was seized.
The Enforcement Directorate subsequently filed an application before the Adjudicating Authority for retention of the seized items under Sections 20 and 21 of the PMLA.
Following that application, the Adjudicating Authority issued a show-cause notice asking the petitioner to explain why the seized property should not remain with the Enforcement Directorate under the Act.
The petitioner argued that the respondents failed to supply the complete set of “Relied Upon Documents” as required by Rule 13(2) of the Adjudicating Authority (Procedure) Regulations, 2013, which, the petitioner said, prevented an effective reply.
The respondents countered that several documents, including the Original Application and other relied-upon materials, had been provided electronically via email.
The High Court examined the Adjudicating Authority (Procedure) Regulations, 2013, especially the provisions governing service of summons and notices in PMLA proceedings. It noted that Rule 13 provides multiple modes of service personal delivery, registered post, courier and electronic communication and that the regulations treat communications sent by electronic means as valid service.
The Court held that summons or notice may be sent by electronic mode in the manner provided under Section 13 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and that transmission by such means constitutes valid service.
In the present matter, the Court found the notice had been emailed to the petitioner, who had received it along with certain documents in electronic form. The Court therefore rejected the argument that service was invalid merely because the documents were not delivered as a bound paper book.
The Court further observed that the petitioner had already filed comments before the Adjudicating Authority and had requested additional documents. Whether any further materials fall within the scope of “Relied Upon Documents” must be decided by the Adjudicating Authority.
The Court also noted that the Adjudicating Authority has powers analogous to those of a civil court, including “the power to allow the parties for discovery and inspection of documents, enforcing the attendance of any person, including any officer of a banking company, and examining him on oath, compelling the production of records, receiving evidence on affidavits, issuing commission for examination of witness and documents and any other matter which may be prescribed”.
The Court referred to the Delhi High Court decision in Naresh Jain v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement (2019), emphasising that actions taken under the PMLA must rest on reasonable grounds and are amenable to legal scrutiny.
The High Court concluded that service of notices by email is valid under the statutory scheme governing PMLA proceedings.
The writ petition was disposed of with directions that the Adjudicating Authority determine whether the documents sought by the petitioner qualify as “Relied Upon Documents” and, if so, direct the Enforcement Directorate to furnish them.
If additional documents are produced, the petitioner must be permitted to file a supplementary reply before the Adjudicating Authority.
Case Title: Dipak De v. Union of India & Ors.