6 min readJan 25, 2026 09:12 AM IST
First published on: Jan 24, 2026 at 11:04 AM IST
The absence of an ink signature, official seal and a technical objection to deliver “summons,” the Ministry of Law and Justice cited these reasons last year refusing to formally serve legal summons by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on Gautam Adani and his nephew Sagar Adani on two separate occasions, documents filed before Eastern District Of New York show.
The refusal by the Ministry, first in May 2025 and again in December 2025, prompted the US regulator to seek intervention from a New York federal court to bypass standard international service procedures and serve an “effective” summons to the Adanis through email.
As reported in The Indian Express on Friday, the Adani Group companies lost between 3.3% and 14.6% or cumulatively Rs 1 lakh in market capitalisation during the day.
“Given the Ministry’s position, and the time elapsed since service was first attempted pursuant to the Hague Convention, the SEC does not expect service to be completed through the Hague Convention,” the SEC stated in its request. The communication with the Indian government is part of the annexures in support of the SEC’s request.
In a complaint filed in November 2024, the SEC alleged that the Adanis violated “antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws by knowingly or recklessly making false and misleading representations concerning Adani Green Energy Ltd in connection with a September 2021 debt offering by Adani Green”. The Adani group withdrew the $ 600 million bond offering after the US Department of Justice indicted group chairman Gautam Adani and six related entities on bribery charges. Apart from the criminal case, the SEC is pursuing a civil lawsuit for alleged violation of securities laws.
As per court documents, the SEC in February 2025 submitted formal request to the Law Ministry for assistance under the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters. The international law allows for courts send documents in civil or commercial cases through official channels instead of unreliable mail or third-party agents.
The law ministry declined to effect service at that time, citing the absence of an ink signature on the SEC’s cover letter and a missing seal on the required forms. “…it is observed that the forwarding letter bears no seal & signature and the Model Form bears no seal of the requesting authority as well. Hence, this Department is unable to verify and confirm the authenticity of the documents/Request and therefore, the Documents are being returned to you for necessary action,” the ministry stated in its response to the SEC request.
The SEC resubmitted the documents later that month, arguing that the Hague Convention does not mandate such formalities. The SEC cited the 4th Edition of the Practical Handbook on the Operation of the Service Convention to argue that the practice by some states to deny service of documents “unless they bear the seal and stamp of the issuing court…. is erroneous.”
In December, the law ministry again denied service of summons citing US law. “The documents have been checked and in view of the Rule 5(b) of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)’s Informal and Other Procedures, 17 C.F.R. § 202.5(b), it is found that the above mentioned summon does not cover in the above said categories. Therefore, the same is returned herewith,” the letter stated.
The SEC Informal and Other Procedures is a set of practice rules for the US regulator. The provision, referred to by the law ministry, deals with the potential enforcement methods that the SEC can adopt.
It states: “After investigation or otherwise the Commission may in its discretion take one or more of the following actions: Institution of administrative proceedings looking to the imposition of remedial sanctions, initiation of injunctive proceedings in the courts, and, in the case of a willful violation, reference of the matter to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution. The Commission may also, on some occasions, refer the matter to, or grant requests for access to its files made by, domestic and foreign governmental authorities or foreign securities authorities, self-regulatory organizations such as stock exchanges or the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., and other persons or entities.”
Essentially, the law ministry argued that issuing a “summons” is not one of the enforcement tools as per the rules.
“The Ministry appeared to suggest that the SEC lacks authority to invoke the Hague Convention or seek service of the Summonses. This objection has no basis in the Convention, which governs service procedures, not the SEC’s underlying authority to bring enforcement actions,” the SEC stated in its request to the New York court.
The Adani group has repeatedly dismissed the SEC’s allegations as baseless, adding that it will seek all possible legal recourse.
In a filing to the stock exchanges late Friday, Adani Green Energy said, “The Company is not a party to these proceedings, and no charges have been brought against it. Further, as clarified in our intimation to the stock exchanges dated November 27, 2024 (1:16:32hrs), the Defendants have not been charged with violation/(s) of the United States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act i.e. there are no charges of bribery or corruption against the Defendants. The SEC proceedings are civil in nature.” The filing was in response to a query from the stock exchanges.
India’s Law Ministry declined twice to serve SEC summons on Gautam and Sagar Adani, citing missing seals, signatures and objections under US law, court filings show. (File Photo) 
Share
