NCLT Asks SFIO To Clarify Whether It Verified Karti Chidambaram's PAN Before Freezing His Wife's Accounts

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) at Chennai on Wednesday asked the Serious Fraud Investigation Office to clarify whether it independently verified fomer MP Karti Chidambaram's PAN before seeking freezing of the bank accounts of his wife, Dr. Srinidhi Karti Chidambaram, and directed the agency to file a response by December 9

The bench of Judicial Member Sanjiv Jain and Technical Member Venkataraman Subramaniam noted that SFIO had admitted in tribunal that there were no proceedings pending against Srinidhi when her accounts were attached under the tribunal's ex parte order of November 4. It noted that the attachment rested entirely on Karti's deposition claiming that the PAN belonged to him. The tribunal told the agency that it would have to explain whether it had corroborated the details independently before attaching her account.

The direction came while hearing Srinidhi's plea seeking de-freezing of her accounts. Her accounts were frozen following a  November 4 ex parte interim order obtained by SFIO. The order was passed in SFIO's petition under provisions of the Companies Act seeking disgorgement of alleged unlawful gains of Rs 48 crore. The petition forms part of SFIO's investigation into Advantage Strategic Consulting Private Limited. The company is allegedly controlled by Karti P. Chidambaram and is at the heart of the Aircel Maxis and 2G spectrum related investigations.

According to ED, ASCPL received 26 lakh rupees soon after the 2006 FIPB approval granted to Maxis. The ED had also alleged that another related entity, Chess Management Services Private Limited, received 90 lakh rupees from Maxis associated companies for software services that were allegedly not of use to them.

A separate SFIO probe ordered by the central government in 2017 culminated in a 2024 report alleging unlawful gains of about 48 crore rupees, following which the Ministry of Corporate Affairs instructed the SFIO to seek disgorgement under the provisions of the Companies Act. Acting on that direction, SFIO approached the NCLT and obtained the November 4 order that froze IOB and DCB accounts of Advantage Strategic and those linked to Karti.

Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Srinidhi, argued that SFIO had frozen her accounts including a joint account with her 85-year-old mother-in-law, solely on the basis of an incorrect PAN number that Karti had inadvertently provided during his February 2024 examination. “They acted on suppression,” Luthra said, pointing out that SFIO had already accessed the correct PAN while freezing Karti's own accounts on November 12, yet did not return to the tribunal to correct the error. He argued that the agency had neither pleaded nor produced any material linking Srinidhi or her companies to ASCPL's affairs.

The tribunal noted that SFIO had not demonstrated any corroboration of the PAN details before acting against Srinidhi despite the investigation having been underway “for a long time” since 2017. The tribunal said the attachments were based “mainly” on the PAN entered in Karti's deposition and asked SFIO to explain whether any independent verification was conducted before freezing the accounts of a person against whom it admitted no proceedings were pending.

SFIO sought time to file a detailed response in Srinidhi's plea. The tribunal granted the agency two days to respond. It also directed Srinidhi and Chess to file and share with SFIO the shareholding details of Chess Management Services Pvt. Ltd. and Chess Global Advisory, companies that were allegedly mistakenly dragged into the attachments despite not being part of SFIO's original prayers.

In a separate order, the tribunal partly granted ASCPL's plea to lift the attachment on its IOB current account, allowing the company limited withdrawals strictly for litigation expenses, statutory dues, and maintenance of its properties. Senior advocate Arvindh Pandian submitted that ASCPL faced multiple litigations and depended entirely on quarterly interest from fixed deposits amounting to roughly Rs 25-30 lakh annually to meet these expenses. He argued that even the Enforcement Directorate, which had attached certain FDs in an earlier PMLA case arising from the Aircel-Maxis probe, had permitted ASCPL to use the accrued interest.

SFIO opposed the request, arguing that ASCPL had not specified its expenses and that attachment was necessary to safeguard the alleged Rs 48 crore unlawful gain identified in the 2024 SFIO investigation report.

The tribunal observed, however, that ASCPL was required to defend ongoing proceedings and maintain its assets. It lifted the attachment on the IOB account but directed the company to submit weekly statements to SFIO, clarifying that withdrawals may be made only for the stated purposes and any “mischief” detected must be immediately brought back to the bench.

ASCPL's main application to set aside the November 4, ex-parte order will be heard on December 9, alongside Srinidhi's plea.

Case Title: Union of India through Serious Fraud Investigation Office vs Advantage Strategic Consulting Private Limited (ASCPL) & 1 Another

Case Number: CP/110(CHE)2025