Case Law Details
Gunadhar Ghosh Vs Joint Director Directorate of Enforcement (Karnataka High Court)
The Karnataka High Court heard a writ petition seeking to quash summons dated 06.05.2026 issued under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The first petitioner, who suffers from orthopedic paraplegia, submitted that he was unable to appear before the Enforcement Directorate (ED). It was stated that the second petitioner’s son, who had custody of the relevant documents, would produce them before the ED, and that the first petitioner’s personal appearance should not be insisted upon.
The Enforcement Directorate submitted that it would not insist on the first petitioner’s presence but required the second petitioner to appear and produce the necessary documents in cooperation with the investigation. The Court accordingly directed that the first petitioner need not appear, while directing the second petitioner to appear before the ED and tender the required evidence on 24.06.2026.
At the subsequent hearing, counsel for the ED informed the Court that the second petitioner had appeared with all the necessary documents and requested disposal of the petition on that basis.
In view of the submission, the High Court disposed of the petition while reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach the Court again if the need arose in future.
Karnataka HC allows Paraplegic Man Skip ED Summons after Family Hands Over Docs; Disposes S.50 PMLA Challenge
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
The petitioners are before the Court seeking the following prayers:
a. to issue a writ of certiorari or such other appropriate writ or orders or directions, quashing all proceedings against the petitioners pursuant to the Notice/Summons bearing No.PMLA/SUMMON/ BGZO/2026/4701/203, dated 06.05.2026 issued under Section 50 of the PMLA in F.No.BGZO/35/2024, issued by the 2nd respondent i.e. Annexure-A as void, illegal and not maintainable.
b. to award costs and grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and expedient in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. Heard Sri. Siddharth Suman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Madhu N. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. This Court, owing to the submission of the petitioner and the contra submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the Enforcement Directorate had passed the following order:
“The first petitioner who suffers orthopedic paraplegia is before the Court on his inability to answer the summons and appear before the Enforcement Directorate to render evidence as is sought for. The second petitioner is the other partner of M/s. Muktakeshi Rice Mill.
The learned counsel for petitioners submits that the second petitioner’s son who is in custody of all the documents will produce all the necessary documents before the Enforcement Directorate and the presence of the first petitioner may not be insisted upon.
The learned counsel Sri Madhu N Rao appearing for the respondents submits that the first petitioner’s presence will not be insisted. However, the second petitioner should come and produce all the documents before the Enforcement Directorate to co-operate with the investigation.
In the light of the aforesaid submission, I deem it appropriate to direct the Enforcement Directorate not to insist upon the presence of the first petitioner for the purpose of rendering evidence in answer to the summon. However, the second petitioner, whether with his son or without him, shall appear before the Enforcement Directorate to tender such evidence as is sought for, in accordance with law on 24.06.2026.
List this matter on 01.07.2026. “
4. Sri. Madhu N. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the Enforcement Directorate submits that the second petitioner has appeared with all the necessary documents and he would submit that the petition be disposed on that ground.
5. In the light of the said submission, the petition stands disposed, reserving liberty to the petitioners to knock at the doors of this Court in the event of need of any kind in future.
Ordered accordingly.
Author Bio
