Bank Accounts Of Srinidhi Chidambaram Frozen Due To “Inadvertent Error” During Probe Into Karti, SFIO Tells NCLT Chennai
Sangeetha Prathap
The Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) informed the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Chennai, that an “inadvertent error” on its part resulted in the freezing of the bank accounts belonging to Dr. Srinidhi Karti Chidambaram, the wife of former MP Karti P. Chidambaram. The attachment stemmed from an ex parte order issued on November 4 in disgorgement proceedings concerning Advantage Strategic Consulting Pvt. Ltd. (ASCPL), a company alleged to be linked to Karti in connection with the Aircel-Maxis and 2G spectrum investigations.
After conceding the error, the Tribunal expressed displeasure that the agency had yet to act upon its December 3 directive requiring SFIO to complete verification and place accurate information on record by December 9. The Bench of Judicial Member Jyoti Kumar Tripathi and Technical Member Ravichandran Ramasamy noted that SFIO had still not complied and instructed the agency to complete the process without further delay. The Bench observed that the matter was being taken up for the third time and cautioned the agency that it would not permit continued postponement, remarking, “This is a serious matter. Please put your resources together and get it done overnight.”
During the hearing, counsel appearing for SFIO stated that the bank accounts of Srinidhi—including one jointly held with her 85-year-old mother-in-law—were attached because the agency incorrectly entered her PAN in place of Karti’s. Describing the mistake as an “inadvertent error” and not deliberate, counsel submitted that the number had been taken from Karti’s own statement recorded in February 2024. SFIO sought two more days to submit rectified particulars.
The Bench, however, was not convinced. It noted the submission made on behalf of Srinidhi that SFIO had used the correct PAN for Karti on November 12 while freezing his accounts, and questioned why, once the mistake came to light, SFIO had not immediately returned to the Tribunal to rectify the error affecting Srinidhi’s accounts. The Bench observed that if the verification had already been undertaken, the agency should have been in a position to clarify the matter promptly. It commented that SFIO appeared to be “delaying the matter” and emphasised that the correction must be carried out “quickly, at once,” adding that the agency could not seek “weeks” to complete a task that, in the “digital world,” ought to be handled without undue time.
When SFIO requested time until Friday, the Tribunal remarked that it would have preferred to take up the matter “tomorrow itself,” but nonetheless ordered that the corrected details be filed by Thursday, reiterating, “We are very serious about it.”
Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Srinidhi, submitted that SFIO had disregarded the Tribunal’s directions and had not issued any corrective communication to banks. He argued that Srinidhi’s bank accounts were frozen “solely on the basis of an incorrect PAN,” even though SFIO had already accessed and used Karti’s correct PAN for its November 12 action. He further pointed out that neither Srinidhi nor her companies had been linked to ASCPL in SFIO’s pleadings and that even a joint account with her elderly mother-in-law had been attached. According to him, SFIO’s insistence that verification was still pending was not a fair representation before the Tribunal.
Luthra also referred the Bench to portions of his application showing that SFIO had attached Chess Management Services Pvt. Ltd. on the basis of Karti’s PAN. SFIO maintained that data had been preserved but that the wrong PAN was inadvertently inserted. The Tribunal responded that SFIO must expressly identify the accounts that ought not to have been frozen and stressed that the agency was expected to marshal “whatever resources” were required to correct the error immediately.
The controversy arises from SFIO’s petition seeking disgorgement of approximately ₹48 crore, which the agency alleges represents unlawful gains routed to ASCPL and related entities based on a 2017 investigation initiated by the Central Government. Pursuant to directions from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, SFIO secured the November 4 ex parte order freezing the accounts of ASCPL and those linked to Karti—a process that, due to the admitted error, extended to Srinidhi and companies not named in the original reliefs sought.
Taking note of SFIO’s concession, the Tribunal observed that the mistake must be rectified “at the earliest” and that the agency “cannot delay” placing accurate information before it. The Bench directed that the corrected details be filed on or before December 11, 2025, and scheduled the next hearing for December 12, 2025.
Cause Title: Union of India through Serious Fraud Investigation Office vs Advantage Strategic Consulting Private Limited (ASCPL) & 1 Another
Case No: CP/110(CHE)2025
Coram: Judicial Member Jyoti Kumar Tripathi ,Technical Member Ravichandran Ramasamy
