The Madras High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Karti P. Chidambaram seeking a direction to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Chennai Bench, to expeditiously dispose of his application for de-freezing his bank account, holding that constitutional courts must exercise restraint in issuing time-bound directions for disposal of cases.
The petitioner had approached the High Court under Article 226 seeking a mandamus to the NCLT to decide his interlocutory application dated April 8, 2026, which sought defreezing of his bank account allegedly frozen pursuant to communication from the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO).
Refusing to entertain the plea, the Division Bench observed that entertaining such petitions would place “unnecessary pressure” on courts and tribunals, disrupting their ability to manage cases systematically. It emphasised that judicial fora are best placed to prioritise matters based on urgency as presented before them.
The Court underscored that in exercise of writ jurisdiction, directions for expeditious disposal should not be issued as a matter of routine, and must be confined to exceptional circumstances. Reliance was placed on the Constitution Bench judgment in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh,Crl.APP. @ SLP (Crl.)No.13366 of 2024, wherein it was held that constitutional courts should ordinarily refrain from fixing timelines for disposal of cases pending before other courts.
Significantly, the Court noted that the petitioner had filed the writ petition within a day of moving the application before the NCLT, without allowing the Tribunal any reasonable opportunity to consider the matter. Such an approach, the Court held, could not be appreciated and amounted to an attempt to secure preferential listing.
The Bench further cautioned that permitting such reliefs may prejudice other litigants awaiting adjudication, reiterating that all litigants must be treated equally, irrespective of their stature.
Finding no violation of natural justice or infringement of statutory rights warranting interference, the Court declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 and dismissed the writ petition, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue his remedies before the NCLT in accordance with law.
Appearances:
For Petitioner : Mr. R. Shunmugasundaram, Senior Counsel for N.R. R. Arun Natarajan
For Respondents : Mr. K.R. Samratt Senior Panel Counsel for Central Government-for R1
