Madras High Court Refuses To Fast-Track Karti Chidambaram's NCLT Plea Seeking Defreezing Of Bank Account

The Madras High Court on Thursday refused to direct the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Chennai Bench, to expeditiously dispose of an application filed by Karti P. Chidambaram, son of former Union Minister P. Chidambaram, in PMLA proceedings against him, seeking defreezing of his bank account, holding that such directions would place “unnecessary pressure” on judicial forums.

A Division Bench of Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice K. Surender said constitutional courts must exercise restraint while issuing time-bound directions for disposal of cases pending before courts or tribunals and can do so only in exceptional circumstances.

Chidambaram had approached the High Court seeking a direction to the NCLT to urgently hear his plea for defreezing his bank account, which had been frozen pursuant to an email communication issued by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office to the State Bank of India.

He had filed an interlocutory application before the NCLT seeking defreezing and lifting of attachment on his bank account maintained with the State Bank of India, contending that he was unable to operate his personal salary account and discharge his functions.

Refusing relief, the bench cautioned that entertaining such writ petitions would compel tribunals to take up matters out of turn. “In exercise of the power of judicial review under Article 226, if such urgent directions are issued for speedy disposal of the cases, undoubtedly it would cause unnecessary pressure on the Courts / Tribunals and the judicial fora may not be in a position to decide the cases in a systematic manner on its own,” the Court observed.

Emphasising restraint, the bench added, “Only on exceptional circumstances, where Courts form an opinion for expeditious disposal of the cases, then terms and conditions are to be stipulated to the parties for effective cooperation and disposal. In normal circumstances, such direction would result in unnecessary burden to the Courts / Tribunals.”

Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors, the Court reiterated that constitutional courts, in the ordinary course, should refrain from fixing time-bound schedules for cases pending before other courts.

The bench noted that Chidambaram had moved the NCLT on April 8, 2026, and approached the High Court the very next day, without taking effective steps to press urgency before the tribunal. It said such a course may be “an easy way out” but would result in unnecessary pressure on the adjudicating forum.

The court also warned that granting such directions could prejudice other litigants awaiting disposal of their cases. "One party approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and securing a direction for speedy disposal may cause prejudice to the interest of other litigants who are all waiting for a long time for the disposal of their respective cases. As far as litigants are concerned, how so high they are, all have to be treated as equal when the cases are dealt with by the Courts.", it said.

Holding that there was no violation of principles of natural justice or denial of basic rights under any statute warranting interference under Article 226, the Court said the petitioner was at liberty to press urgency before the NCLT.

Observing that Chidambaram had not even allowed the tribunal to consider his application, the Bench dismissed the writ petition.

For Petitioner: Senior Advocate R. Shunmugasundaram and Advocate N.R.R. Arun Natarajan

For Respondents: Advocate K.R Samratt, Senior Panel Counsel for Central Government