The Madras High Court, on Thursday (April 16, 2026), dismissed a writ petition filed by Congress Member of Parliament (MP) Karti P. Chidambaram, 54, representing Sivaganga constituency, and refused to direct the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Chennai Bench, to expeditiously dispose of a plea made by him to order the defreezing of his salary account.

Justices S.M. Subramaniam and K. Surender said any such direction would amount to exerting “unnecessary pressure” on the tribunal to dispose of cases out of turn and not let the judicial forum decide them in a “systematic manner.” The High Court must exercise restraint when it comes to directing trial courts/tribunals to dispose of cases expeditiously, they said.

Making it clear that such directions could be issued only in exceptional circumstances, the judges said, in normal circumstances, a direction of such nature would result in imposing “unnecessary burden” on the tribunals. In the present case, Mr. Karti Chidambaram had filed an interlocutory application before the NCLT on April 8, and moved the High Court with the present writ petition on April 9, they said.

“No effective steps have been taken by the petitioner to ventilate his grievance before the NCLT, 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 on the tribunal,” the judges wrote. They also said a direction for speedy disposal of select cases might cause prejudice to other litigants waiting for a long time.

Justice Subramaniam wrote: “As far as litigants are concerned, howsoever high they may be, all of them have to be treated as equal when their cases are dealt with by the courts... In the present case, the petitioner has not even allowed the tribunal to consider the interlocutory application and filed the present writ petition on the very next day of the filing of such interlocutory application.”

Despite dismissing his writ petition, the judges granted liberty to the MP to ventilate his grievance as well as the urgency before the NCLT.

Background of the case

In his affidavit, the MP told the court that the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), under the Union Ministry of Corporate Affairs, had filed a company petition before the NCLT on October 15, 2025 for disgorging the assets of Advantage Strategic Consulting Private Limited and that of the writ petitioner to the tune of ₹48 crore, along with interest at the rate to be determined by the tribunal.

The allegation of fraud against Advantage Strategic Consulting was in connection with the purchase and sale of shares of Vasan Eye Care Private Limited between 2009-10 and 2013-14 and the NCLT passed an exparte interim order on November 4, 2025 for freezing certain bank accounts. The tribunal also ordered attachment of the properties owned by Advantage Strategic Consulting as well as the writ petitioner.

Asserting that he was neither a direct shareholder nor a director in Advantage Strategic Consulting, Mr. Karti Chidambaram said, his relationship with the company was limited to indirect shareholding through an entity called Ausbridge Holdings and Investments Private Limited. He claimed to have been a director of Ausbridge Hodlings only for a limited period between February 28, 2006 and March 8, 2012.

The MP also accused the SFIO of having acted in a casual, negligent and malafide manner by submitting his wife’s Permanent Account Number (PAN), instead of his PAN, before the NCLT which led to wrongful freezing of her bank accounts. He said, the grave error was rectified only on December 12, 2025 when the bank accounts related to her PAN were defrozen and instead his accounts were frozen.

Complaining that the SFIO did not spare even his MP salary account maintained at the State Bank of India’s Parliament House branch in New Delhi, the writ petitioner said, he was unable to pay even for the air tickets to attend Parliament proceedings. Therefore, he had approached the High Court seeking a direction to the NCLT for speedy disposal of his interlocutory application to defreeze the salary account.