Mr.Karti P.Chidambaram vs Union Of India
2026 Latest Caselaw 1928 Mad

Madras High Court

Mr.Karti P.Chidambaram vs Union Of India on 16 April, 2026

Author: S. M. Subramaniam

Bench: S. M. Subramaniam

2026:MHC:1480

W.P No. 15092 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SURENDER WP No. 15092 of 2026 Mr.Karti P.Chidambaram S/o.P.Chidambaram No.16 Dr.S.S.Badrinath Road Nungambakkam, Chennai 600006.

..Petitioner Vs

1. Union Of India Through Serious Fraud Investigation Office Ministry of Corporate Affairs Having office at No.109, Nungambakkam High Road Chennai 600034.

2. The Assistant General Manager (agm) and Nodal Officer SFIO, State Bank of India No.11, Parliament Street New Delhi 110001.

3. The Senior Assistant Director Serious Fraud Investigation Office Regional Office BSNL New Administrative Building 4th Floor, B Wing, Tower-II No.16 Greams Road, Thousand Lights Chennai 600006.

4. The Manager State Bank of India Parliament House Branch Sansad Bhawan New Delhi 110001.

__________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

5. The Registrar National Company Law Tribunal Special Bench, Court II 6th Floor, Ezhilagam Annex Chepauk, Chennai 600005.

..Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench to dispose of the application dated 08.04.2026 filed by the Petitioner requesting the de-freeezing the account of the petitioner having Account No. 38532489200 in the 4th respondent bank which has been frozen based on the email communication dated 02.04.2026 from the 2nd respondent to the 4th respondent expeditiously.

                              For Petitioner :          Mr.R.Shunmugasundaram, Senior Counsel
                                                        for N.R.R.Arun Natarajan

                              For Respondents :         Mr.K.R.Samratt

Senior Panel Counsel for Central Government-for R1

Order (Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

The present writ petition has been instituted to direct the National Company

Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench to dispose of the application dated 08.04.2026 filed by

the petitioner requesting the defreezing the account of the petitioner having Account

No.38532489200 in the 4th respondent bank which has been frozen based on the

email communication dated 02.04.2026 from the 2nd respondent to the 4th

respondent expeditiously, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

__________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2. The petitioner filed an interlocutory application in C.P.No.110/Che/2025

before the National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench under Section 11 of the

National Company Law Tribunal Rules. The relief sought for is to direct the

authorities to defreeze and lifting of the attachment of the petitioner's bank account

lying with the State Bank of India, Parliament House Branch at New Delhi.

3. Mr.R.Shunmugasundaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of

the petitioner would mainly contend that the petitioner is unable to operate his

personal salary account and he has to discharge his functions. Thus, an interlocutory

application has been filed on 08.04.2026 before the National Company Law Tribunal

with a request to defreeze the bank account enabling the petitioner to operate the

same for multiple purposes.

4. This court is of the considered view that, if such a writ petition filed seeking

speedy disposal of the interlocutory application is entertained and a direction is

issued to the Tribunal, it will cause unnecessary pressure on the Tribunal to dispose

of such matters out of turn. No doubt, the Courts / Tribunals are considering matters

based on the urgency which has to be placed by the parties before the Court

concerned. In exercise of the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, if such urgent directions are issued for speedy disposal of the

__________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

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.

5. Therefore, the High Court is expected to exercise restraint in issuing such a

direction for speedy disposal of the cases pending before various Courts / Tribunals.

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.

6. In a Constitution Bench Judgment in the case of High Court Bar

Association, Allahabad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., in Crl.APP. @

SLP (Crl.)No.13366 of 2024, the Supreme Court held that in the ordinary course,

the Constitution Courts are refrained from fixing the time bound schedule for the

disposal of the cases pending before any other courts. Paragraph 47.3 of the said

judgment reads thus:

“ 47.3 Constitutional courts, in the ordinary course, should

refrain from fixing a time bound schedule for the disposal of cases

pending before any other courts. Constitutional courts may issue

directions for the time bound disposal of cases only in exceptional

__________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

circumstances. The issue of prioritising the disposal of cases

should be best left to the decision of the courts concerned where

the cases are pending.”

7. In the present case, the petitioner has filed an interlocutory application

only on 08.04.2026. The present writ petition has been instituted on 09.04.2026,

the very next day of filing of the interlocutory application. No effective steps are

taken by the petitioner to ventilate his grievance before the National Company Law

Tribunal, but a writ petition has been filed seeking a direction for speedy disposal. It

may be an easy way out for the petitioner, but it would result in unnecessary

pressure to the Court / Tribunal dealing with the matter. The Court / Tribunal is

expected to dispose of the matters systematically and whenever urgency is raised,

the said Court / Tribunal has to consider the same for speedy disposal.

8. Per contra, 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.

__________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

9. In the present case, the petitioner has not even allowed the Tribunal to

consider the Interlocutory Application and filed the present writ petition immediately

the very next day of the filing of such application ie., on 09.04.2026, which cannot

be appreciated by this Court. That apart, the petitioner has not established any

violation of principles of natural justice or denial of basic rights under any Statute

and therefore it would be unnecessary for the High Court to entertain the present

writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is at

liberty to ventilate his grievance as well as urgency before the National Company

Law Tribunal for expeditious disposal of the interlocutory application.

10. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition stands dismissed. No

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

(S.M.S.,J.) (K.S.,J.) 16-04-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes

KST

__________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

To

1. Union Of India Through Serious Fraud Investigation Office Ministry of Corporate Affairs Having office at No.109 Nungambakkam High Road Chennai 600034.

2. The Assistant General Manager (AGM) and Nodal Officer SFIO, State Bank of India No.11, Parliament Street New Delhi 110001.

3. The Senior Assistant Director Serious Fraud Investigation Office Regional Office BSNL New Administrative Building 4th Floor, B Wing, Tower-II No.16 Greams Road, Thousand Lights Chennai 600006.

4. The Manager State Bank of India Parliament House Branch Sansad Bhawan New Delhi 110001.

5. The Registrar National Company Law Tribunal Special Bench, Court II 6th Floor, Ezhilagam Annex Chepauk, Chennai 600005.

__________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.

AND K.SURENDER J.

KST

16-04-2026

__________

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis