Calcutta High Court permits representation through authorised agent before ED in PMLA summons matter
The Calcutta High Court, in Kishori Lal Jaiswal Vs Union of India & Ors., addressed a writ petition filed by a 76‑year‑old assessee facing summons from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The core issue was whether, in light of his advanced age and medical condition, he could be examined virtually or at the Kolkata Zonal Office instead of physically appearing before the ED office at Jalandhar.
Instead of granting virtual examination or shifting the venue, the Court struck a middle path. It allowed the assessee to depute an authorised representative to appear with all documents at Jalandhar in the first instance, while preserving the ED’s power to insist on the assessee’s personal presence later, subject to a minimum 15‑day notice period.
Background of the writ petition
ED summons under Section 50(2)(3) of PMLA
The ED issued a notice dated 26 May 2026 under Section 50(2)(3) of the PMLA Act, calling upon the assessee to appear before the ED authorities at Jalandhar on 2 June 2026 at 10:00 a.m. for the purpose of giving evidence and assisting in an ongoing investigation.
The notice directed him to:
- Personally attend the ED office at Jalandhar
- Give his statement in relation to proceedings under the PMLA Act
- Provide specified documents and information relevant to the investigation
However, the assessee received this notice only on 2 June 2026 at 16:53 hours, i.e., after the scheduled time for appearance had already passed. He immediately informed the ED by email that, due to the belated receipt, he was unable to comply with the summons for that date.
Plea based on age and medical condition
In his writ petition, the assessee contended that:
- He is 76 years old.
- He suffers from multiple health problems.
- He has been repeatedly hospitalised for these ailments.
Because of his age and recurring hospital admissions, he asserted that travelling from Kolkata to Jalandhar to appear before the ED authorities in person is extremely difficult, if not practically impossible.
The assessee disclosed several medical records before the Court to substantiate these contentions and to demonstrate that his non‑appearance on the fixed dates was not willful but a consequence of genuine medical constraints.
Second date fixed and continuing difficulty
Following the assessee’s email communication about the first notice, the ED fixed another date for his examination on 10 June 2026. According to the assessee, he again could not attend on 10 June 2026 as he was hospitalised at that time.
He reiterated to the ED that, due to his age and ailments:
- He could not travel to Jalandhar.
- He was willing and ready to cooperate fully with the investigating agency.
- He preferred to be examined through virtual mode (video conferencing) or
- In the alternative, to be examined at the Kolkata Zonal Office of the ED.
To evidence his willingness to cooperate, the assessee offered to:
- Submit all the documents specified in the 26 May 2026 notice by email, and
- Physically produce the documents at the Kolkata Zonal Office, if he was allowed to be examined there.
Documents demanded by ED in the notice
The notice dated 26 May 2026 required the assessee to furnish, inter alia:
- Self‑attested copies of PAN Card, Aadhaar Card and Passport
- Complete particulars of all bank accounts
- Details of all immovable properties
- Information relating to his mobile number
The assessee did not dispute the obligation to supply these documents. His limited grievance was confined to the requirement of personal appearance at Jalandhar in light of his medical incapacities.
Reliance on earlier Calcutta High Court order
Reference to Menaka Gambhir vs. Union of India & Ors.
In support of his plea to be examined at Kolkata rather than Jalandhar, learned counsel for the assessee referred to an earlier unreported order of the Calcutta High Court in Menaka Gambhir vs. Union of India & Ors., WPA 19748 of 2022.
In that matter, a Coordinate Bench of the same High Court had allowed the ED to examine the petitioner at the ED Zonal Office at Kolkata rather than at another location.