Service Of Notice Through Email Valid Under PMLA Proceedings: Calcutta High Court

The Court observed that the statutory framework governing proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority expressly recognises service through electronic communication.

The Court was hearing a writ petition challenging a show cause notice issued under Section 8(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and seeking the supply of “Relied Upon Documents” in connection with proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority under the Act.

A Bench of Justice Krishna Rao, while interpreting 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 appeared for the petitioner, while Senior Advocate Vipul Kundalia represented the respondents.

Background

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking the quashing of a show cause notice dated 25 November 2025 issued under Section 8(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The petitioner also sought directions for the supply of all “Relied Upon Documents” relied upon by the Enforcement Directorate in the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority.

The proceedings arose from a search conducted at the petitioner’s residence during which an amount of ₹25,50,000 in cash, along with certain digital devices and documents, were seized. The Enforcement Directorate thereafter moved an application before the Adjudicating Authority seeking retention of the seized properties under Sections 20 and 21 of the PMLA.

Pursuant to the application, the Adjudicating Authority issued a show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to explain why the seized properties should not be permitted to be retained by the Enforcement Directorate in terms of the provisions of the Act.

The petitioner contended before the Court that the respondents had failed to supply the complete “Relied Upon Documents” in accordance with Rule 13(2) of the Adjudicating Authority (Procedure) Regulations, 2013, thereby preventing the petitioner from filing an effective reply to the show cause notice.

The respondents, on the other hand, submitted that certain documents, including the Original Application and several documents relied upon, had already been supplied to the petitioner in electronic form through email.

Court’s Observation

The High Court examined the scheme of the Adjudicating Authority (Procedure) Regulations, 2013, governing the service of summons and notices in proceedings under the PMLA.

The Court noted that Rule 13 expressly provides multiple modes of service, including personal delivery, registered post, courier service and electronic communication. The regulations further clarify that communication transmitted through electronic means shall be regarded as a valid service.

The Court observed that summon or notice may be communicated through electronic mode as provided in Section 13 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and transmission of such communication shall be regarded as a valid service.

In the present case, the Court found that the notice issued by the Adjudicating Authority had been served upon the petitioner through email, and the petitioner had received the same along with certain documents in electronic form.

The Court therefore rejected the contention that service of the show cause notice was invalid merely because the documents were not supplied in a bound paper book.

The Court further observed that the petitioner had already submitted comments before the Adjudicating Authority and had requested additional documents. The determination as to whether further documents constituted “Relied Upon Documents” was a matter to be considered by the Adjudicating Authority.

The Court also remarked that the Adjudicating Authority possesses 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 decision of the Delhi High Court in Naresh Jain v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement (2019) and observed that powers exercised under the PMLA must be based on reasonable grounds and subject to scrutiny in accordance with law.

Conclusion

The Court held that service of notice through electronic mail constitutes valid service under the statutory framework governing proceedings under the PMLA.

The writ petition was disposed of with directions that the Adjudicating Authority shall determine whether the documents sought by the petitioner constitute “Relied Upon Documents” and, if so, direct the Enforcement Directorate to supply the same.

The Court further directed that if additional documents are supplied, the petitioner shall be allowed to file a supplementary reply before the Adjudicating Authority.

Cause Title: Dipak De v. Union of India & Ors.

Appearances

Petitioner: Raj Mohan Chattoraj, Senior Advocate; Advocates Sankar Prasad Dolopati, Rohan Dwaipayan Bhowmick, Debapriya Ghosh, Ankita Das, Priyanka Yadav.

Respondents: Vipul Kundalia, Senior Advocate; Advocates Soumen Bhattacharjee, Dhirodatto Chaudhuri, Bhaskar Prosad Banerjee; Dhiraj Trivedi, DSGI.

Click here to read/download Judgment