The SEC, aiming to enforce US securities laws, requested a New York federal court to authorize service through email, citing delays and non-compliance with the Hague Convention. The initial refusals, dated May and December 2025, were based on procedural and formal deficiencies, including unsigned cover letters and unsigned model forms, which the Law Ministry argued made the documents unverifiable.
Background of the SEC Case
The SEC filed a complaint in November 2024, alleging that the Adanis violated anti-fraud provisions related to a $600 million bond offering by Adani Green Energy in September 2021. The SEC claims that the group knowingly or recklessly made false and misleading statements. Following a US Department of Justice indictment against Gautam Adani and six related entities on bribery charges, the bond offering was withdrawn.
The SEC is pursuing civil action while the DOJ handles criminal proceedings. According to the SEC, the Law Ministry’s objections to serving summons have no bearing on the SEC’s authority to initiate enforcement actions under US law.
Ministry’s Objections
In February 2025, the SEC formally requested assistance under the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents. The Law Ministry refused service, citing absent ink signatures and seals, and again in December 2025, citing specific US SEC procedural rules (17 C.F.R. § 202.5(b)), which do not categorize a summons as an enforcement tool. The Ministry argued that the SEC could not rely on the Hague Convention to serve such documents.
Adani Group Response
The Adani Group has repeatedly dismissed the SEC allegations as baseless. In a filing to Indian stock exchanges, Adani Green Energy clarified that it is not a party to the proceedings and no charges of bribery or corruption have been brought against it. The company emphasized that the SEC proceedings are civil in nature and it will pursue all available legal remedies.
Next Steps
The New York court’s decision on the SEC’s request for email service will determine the next phase of the case. This procedural development underscores ongoing challenges in international enforcement of securities laws, especially when formalities