The Madras High Court on Thursday refused to direct the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Chennai, to urgently hear a plea filed by Congress Member of Parliament (MP) Karti P Chidambaram seeking the defreezing of his salary account [Karti P Chidambaram Vs Union of India].

A Division Bench of Justices SM Subramaniam and K Surender reasoned that constitutional courts should ordinarily refrain from fixing time-bound schedules for the disposal of cases pending before courts and tribunals, except in exceptional circumstances.

The Court observed that issuing such directions would place unnecessary pressure on judicial forums and disrupt the systematic handling of pending matters.

"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," the April 16 order said.

Chidambaram had filed an interlocutory application before the NCLT on April 8, 2026, seeking the defreezing of his bank account with State Bank of India. The account had been frozen based on a communication from the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO).

He then approached the High Court with a plea for directions to the NCLT to decide on the April 8 application promptly and in a time-bound manner.

Senior Advocate R Shunmugasundaram, appearing for Chidambaram, submitted that the account was a personal salary account and that the freeze prevented him from carrying out his day-to-day functions.

However, the High Court noted that the writ petition had been filed on April 9, the very next day after the application was filed before the NCLT, without allowing the tribunal an opportunity to consider the application.

"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."

The Court cautioned that granting such relief could prejudice other litigants awaiting disposal of their cases, stressing that all parties must be treated equally before judicial forums.

Relying on a Constitution Bench ruling in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court reiterated that constitutional courts should not ordinarily impose timelines on subordinate courts.

Finding no violation of natural justice principles or statutory rights, the Court dismissed Chidambaram's petition.

"(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," the Court added.

Senior Advocate Shunmugasundaram, who represented Chidambaram, was briefed by Advocate NRR Arun Natarajan

The Central government (SFIO) was represented by Advocate KR Samratt

[Read Judgment]