NCLT Asks SFIO To Clarify Whether It Verified Karti Chidambaram’s PAN Prior to Freezing His Wife’s Accounts
Pranav B Prem
The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Chennai Bench, on Wednesday sought a clear explanation from the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) on whether it independently verified the Permanent Account Number (PAN) of former Member of Parliament Karti Chidambaram before seeking the freezing of bank accounts belonging to his wife, Dr. Srinidhi Karti Chidambaram. The Tribunal directed SFIO to file a response by December 9.
The Bench comprising Judicial Member Sanjiv Jain and Technical Member Venkataraman Subramaniam noted that SFIO had admitted during the proceedings that no investigation or proceedings were pending against Srinidhi when her bank accounts were frozen pursuant to the Tribunal’s ex parte order dated November 4. The attachment, the Tribunal observed, appeared to be based solely on a PAN number entered by Karti during his deposition, raising concerns about the absence of independent verification before freezing accounts belonging to a third party.
The direction came during the hearing of Srinidhi’s plea seeking de-freezing of her accounts. The accounts were frozen following an interim ex parte order obtained by SFIO in a petition filed under provisions of the Companies Act seeking disgorgement of alleged unlawful gains amounting to Rs 48 crore. The petition forms part of a wider investigation into Advantage Strategic Consulting Private Limited, a company alleged to be controlled by Karti and linked to the Aircel-Maxis and 2G spectrum-related transactions.
According to the Enforcement Directorate, ASCPL allegedly received Rs 26 lakh soon after the 2006 FIPB approval granted to Maxis, while another related entity, Chess Management Services Private Limited, was said to have received Rs 90 lakh from Maxis-associated companies for software services that were allegedly of no plausible utility to them. A central government-ordered probe by SFIO in 2017 culminated in a 2024 report alleging unlawful gains of Rs 48 crore, following which the Ministry of Corporate Affairs directed SFIO to move the NCLT for disgorgement. It was in pursuit of this petition that the order dated November 4 freezing the accounts of Advantage Strategic and those linked to Karti was issued.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Srinidhi, argued that SFIO acted without due diligence and relied exclusively on a PAN number inadvertently mentioned by Karti during his examination in February 2024, which did not belong to Srinidhi. He submitted that SFIO froze her bank accounts—including a joint account with her 85-year-old mother-in-law—without producing any document linking her to the alleged affairs of ASCPL. He also pointed out that SFIO had already accessed the correct PAN while freezing Karti’s accounts on November 12, yet did not approach the Tribunal to correct its error thereafter.
The Tribunal observed that SFIO did not indicate whether any independent verification had taken place despite the fact that it has been conducting investigations in the matter “for a long time” since 2017. It recorded that the attachment was based “mainly” on the PAN disclosed by Karti during deposition, and therefore SFIO must provide a response explaining whether it had cross-checked the details before moving to freeze Srinidhi’s accounts.
SFIO sought time to file a detailed response. The Tribunal granted two days and simultaneously directed Srinidhi and Chess to provide SFIO with shareholding information relating to Chess Management Services Pvt. Ltd. and Chess Global Advisory—entities that were also mistakenly included in the attachments despite not forming part of SFIO’s original prayers.
In a separate order, the Tribunal partly allowed an application by ASCPL seeking relief from the attachment on its Indian Overseas Bank current account. The company argued that it faced multiple litigations and was dependent on quarterly interest income from its fixed deposits—approximately Rs 25–30 lakh annually—to meet litigation expenses, statutory dues and maintenance of properties. SFIO opposed the plea, insisting that ASCPL had not disclosed the specifics of its expenditures and asserting that attachment was necessary to safeguard the alleged unlawful gain mentioned in the 2024 investigation report.
The Tribunal accepted the need to allow the company to defend its legal proceedings and maintain its assets. It therefore lifted the attachment on ASCPL’s IOB current account but restricted withdrawals strictly to litigation expenses, statutory dues and maintenance costs. It further directed ASCPL to submit weekly statements to SFIO and clarified that any deviation or detected “mischief” should be immediately reported to the Bench. Both Srinidhi’s plea seeking de-freezing of her accounts and ASCPL’s application to set aside the November 4 ex parte order are scheduled to be heard on December 9.
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 Sanjiv Jain, Technical Member Venkataraman Subramaniam
