New Delhi, Jul 9 (PTI) A Delhi court has held that the ED cannot issue a summons to alleged real estate fraud accused Amit Katyal's residence in the national capital as a valid service on his son Krishan Katyal, saying the agency must follow the due process prescribed by law for serving a person living abroad.

Additional Sessions Judge Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan was hearing an application filed by Amit Katyal seeking directions restraining the Enforcement Directorate (ED) from treating the summons served at his address as valid service on his son and requested that the agency be directed to follow the legal procedure for serving a foreign national residing overseas.

In an order dated July 8, the court said, "Krishan Katyal is not a citizen of India and is not an accused in the predicate offence. The service of summons at the address of the applicant dated August 1, 2025 and August 19, 2025 cannot be a deemed service and therefore is non est in law and the ED was required to follow due process of law and serve Krishan Katyal as per procedure established." The court also said that Krishan Katyal is not an accused either in the money laundering case or in the scheduled offence being investigated by the ED.

"There were categorical submission on behalf of applicant to ED vide its letter through counsel dated August 12, 2025 and August 30, 2025 and considering that son of the accused, Krishan Katyal does not reside and has never resided since 2017 at the address of the applicant, could not have been served at the address of the applicant," it said.

Earlier on November 19 last year, the agency arrested Amit Katyal, a real estate businessman considered close to RJD chief Lalu Prasad's family, in a money laundering case linked to alleged cheating of homebuyers in Gurugram.

Amit Katyal was taken into custody by the Gurugram zonal office of the agency under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). He was arrested by the ED in 2023 too in a separate money laundering case related to the railways’ alleged land-for-jobs scam involving Prasad, his wife Rabri Devi and other family members.

He later obtained bail in the case.

The latest investigation pertains to the allegations of non-delivery of flats in the Krrish Florence Estate built over 14 acres in Gurugram's Sector 70. The project was being developed by Amit Katyal's company, Angle Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.

According to the ED, Amit Katyal obtained a licence from another developer in a "fraudulent" manner and started collecting funds from prospective buyers much before the grant of licence from DTCP (Directorate of Town and Country Planning) Haryana, leading to the generation of "proceeds of crime" worth Rs 300 crore.

Probe found several "fraudulent" bookings made by Amit Katyal to third parties in a project meant for central government employees and "diversion" of funds for other purposes leading to stalling of the project.

The agency accused Amit Katyal of "alienating" a part of the licensed land of two acres valued at Rs 130 crore at under-valued rates to third parties during the insolvency proceedings, calling it a "clear abuse of the process of law under the IBC (Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code)".

Significant loans from a public sector bank were also "diverted" through fraudulent transactions and the lender suffered a loss of about Rs 80 crore, the agency alleged.

The businessman was chargesheeted in August, 2025 by the federal agency in a third case for allegedly cheating homebuyers for Rs 500 crore through Krrish Realtech, of which he is a promoter. PTI SKM SKM KSS KSS

Valid service of summons on a foreign national requires due process, not deemed service at a relative's address. Service of summons at an accused person's residence in India cannot be treated as valid or deemed service on his son who is a foreign national, is not an accused in the predicate offence or the money-laundering case, and has not resided at that address since 2017. The Enforcement Directorate was required to follow the procedure prescribed by law for serving a person living abroad, and service at the applicant's address was non est in law.