Madras High Court refused to direct National Company Law Tribunal to urgently hear plea by Karti P Chidambaram. Court held constitutional courts should avoid fixing timelines except in exceptional circumstances.
The Madras High Court refused to issue a direction to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Chennai, for urgent taking up a plea moved by Congress MP Karti P Chidambaram in relation to the defreezing of his salary account.
A Division Bench comprising Justices SM Subramaniam and Justice K Surender, relying on the case of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., in Crl.APP. @ SLP (Crl.)No.13366 of 2024, held that constitutional courts generally should not set time-bound schedules for matters pending before courts and tribunals, except in genuinely exceptional situations.
It quoted,
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 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.”
Factual Backgrounds:
Chidambaram (Petitioner) submitted an interlocutory application before the National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench under Section 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, seeking directions to the concerned authorities to defreeze and lift the attachment on his bank account maintained with the State Bank of India, Parliament House Branch, New Delhi.
Subsequently, the present writ petition was filed requesting the High Court to direct the National Company Law Tribunal, Chennai Bench to dispose of the said application within a time frame to be fixed by the Court.
Mr. R. Shunmugasundaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the petitioner was unable to operate his personal salary account, which hindered the discharge of his professional responsibilities. He submitted that the interlocutory application was filed on 08.04.2026 seeking defreezing of the account to enable its use for various purposes.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed,
“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.”
Further, the Court observed:
“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.”
The Court noted that such directions would create undue pressure on judicial bodies and interfere with the orderly management of pending cases.
The Court said,
“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,”
Order:
The Court noted that the petitioner filed the writ petition on 09.04.2026, immediately the day after submitting the interlocutory application, without giving the Tribunal sufficient opportunity to consider the matter. This conduct was not appreciated by the Court.
It said,
“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.”
It was further held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any violation of the principles of natural justice or infringement of statutory rights, and therefore, there was no justification for invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue his grievance and raise urgency before the National Company Law Tribunal for expeditious consideration of the application.
The Court added,
“(Chidambaram) is at liberty to ventilate his grievance as well as urgency before the National Company Law Tribunal for expeditious disposal of the interlocutory application,”
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.
Holding that no breach of principles of natural justice or any statutory right had been shown, the High Court dismissed Chidambaram’s petition.
Senior Advocate Shunmugasundaram, who appeared for Chidambaram, was briefed by Advocate NRR Arun Natarajan. The Central government (SFIO) was represented by Advocate KR Samratt.
Case Title: Karti P Chidambaram Vs Union of India.
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE