Pranav B Prem

The Appellate Tribunal under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators Act (SAFEMA), New Delhi, on October 29, 2025, dismissed an appeal filed by Karti P. Chidambaram, son of former Union Minister P. Chidambaram, challenging the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) attachment of his assets in the INX Media money laundering case. The Bench comprising Balesh Kumar and Rajesh Malhotra upheld the PMLA Adjudicating Authority’s order dated March 29, 2019, which had confirmed the provisional attachment order issued by the ED on October 10, 2018.

Also Read: Kerala High Court Sends Father and Stepmother to Life Imprisonment for “Brutal and Sustained Acts of Cruelty” That Caused 6-Year-Old Girl’s Death

Background

The Enforcement Directorate had provisionally attached assets worth ₹22.28 crore, including a 50% share in a Jor Bagh flat in New Delhi and seven bank accounts in Chennai containing over ₹6 crore. The attachment was made under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), in connection with alleged irregular foreign investments received by INX Media Pvt. Ltd. during 2007, when P. Chidambaram was the Finance Minister. Karti Chidambaram, accused of facilitating FIPB approval for INX Media in exchange for alleged kickbacks, challenged the attachment before the PMLA Appellate Tribunal, arguing that the confirmation had lapsed after one year as the ED failed to file its Prosecution Complaint within the statutory time limit.

Arguments

The appellant argued that under Section 8(3)(a) of PMLA, an attachment order can continue only for 365 days after confirmation, unless a prosecution complaint is filed before a competent court.

It was contended that the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the attachment on March 29, 2019, and since the Prosecution Complaint was filed only on June 1, 2020, i.e., 430 days later, the attachment had automatically lapsed. Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in S. Kasi v. State (2020), the appellant maintained that no proceedings could continue once the statutory limitation expired, as the COVID-19 limitation extension order could not retrospectively validate expired periods. The appellant further argued that S. Kasi clarified that statutory timelines could not be extended to affect rights conferred by law, and therefore, the ED’s complaint filed beyond the one-year period was time-barred.

ED’s Stand

The Enforcement Directorate contended that the delay in filing the prosecution complaint was covered by the Supreme Court’s suo motu order dated 10.01.2022, which extended limitation periods for all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It was argued that the extended limitation period from March 15, 2020, to February 28, 2022 was applicable to proceedings under the PMLA as well. The ED maintained that the provisional attachment and subsequent confirmation remained valid throughout this extended period.

Tribunal’s Observations

The Tribunal examined whether the attachment could be considered invalid merely because the prosecution complaint was filed beyond 365 days from the confirmation order. Referring to the Supreme Court’s order dated 10.01.2022, the Bench held that the COVID-19 limitation extension was intended to cover all proceedings, including those under the PMLA. It rejected the appellant’s argument that the Supreme Court’s direction was confined to cases affecting personal liberty.

“The question that if the Respondent Directorate could file the Prosecution Complaint on 01.06.2020, then why could they not do so within 365 days of the passing of the Impugned Order would not impact the answer to the moot question that the coverage of the Order dated 10.01.2022 was wide enough as to allow the filing of the Prosecution Complaint under PMLA beyond 365 days,” the Bench observed. The Tribunal distinguished S. Kasi by stating that it was a case concerning personal liberty and default bail, whereas the present matter related to property attachment under the PMLA. It observed: “The judgment in S. Kasi was passed in the context of grant of default bail, which has direct bearing on personal liberty. The present matter relates to continuation of attachment of movable and immovable properties, unlike the issue of personal liberty.”

Recognizing the impact of the pandemic, the Tribunal also remarked:“The enormity of the situation for the Investigating Officer to have completed the investigation during the period of lockdown, when he was not even authorized to visit the witnesses or record their statements, needs to be appreciated.” It further noted that the extraordinary circumstances caused by COVID-19 had a direct impact on the pace of investigation and procedural compliance, justifying the delay in filing the prosecution complaint.

Also Read: Criminal Lawyer Shri Singh Appointed as Special Public Prosecutor for NIA in Pahalgam Terror Attack Case

Concluding that the attachment of assets under the PMLA was valid, the Tribunal held that the delay in filing the prosecution complaint was protected under the extended limitation period granted by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by Karti P. Chidambaram and upheld the Adjudicating Authority’s order dated March 29, 2019, confirming the attachment of his assets valued at ₹22.28 crore.

Appearance

For the Appellant: Advocates Arshdeep Khurana, Akshat Gupta, Sidak Singh Anand

For the Respondent: Advocates Zoheb Hossain, Vivek Gurnani, Kanishk Maurya, Advocate

Cause Title: Karti P. Chidambaram v The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement

Case No: FPA-PMLA-3000/DLI/2019

Coram: Shri Balesh Kumar (Member), Shri Rajesh Malhotra (Member)