The Appellate Tribunal under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) has dismissed the appeal filed by Karti P. Chidambaram, upholding the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) attachment of his assets and ruling that the delay in filing the prosecution complaint was protected by the Supreme Court's Covid-19 limitation orders.
Delivering its final order on October 29, the Tribunal comprising Member (Judicial) Rajesh Malhotra and Member (Administrative) Balesh Kumar stated that although the prosecution complaint was filed on June 1, 2020, more than 365 days after the Adjudicating Authority's confirmation order dated March 29, 2019, the period between March 15, 2020 and February 28, 2022 stood excluded for all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings owing to pandemic-related restrictions.
The appeal was argued on behalf of Karti P. Chidambaram by Advocates Arshdeep Khurana, Akshat Gupta, and Sidak Singh Anand, who contended that the attachment had lapsed automatically as the ED failed to file its complaint within the prescribed 365-day period.
They relied on previous Tribunal decisions and the Supreme Court's ruling in S. Kasi v. State to assert that the COVID limitation orders applied only to litigants and not to executive actions like the filing of prosecution complaints.
Appearing for the Enforcement Directorate, Advocates Zoheb Hossain, Vivek Gurnani, and Kanishk Maurya countered the argument, emphasising that the lockdown had severely restricted the movement and functioning of courts. They maintained that the ED's action was protected under the Supreme Court's suo motu order extending the limitation during the pandemic.
Upholding the ED's position, the Tribunal observed, "The coverage of the Supreme Court's order dated 10.01.2022 was wide enough to allow the filing of the prosecution complaint under PMLA beyond 365 days of the passing of the impugned order, as long as such period fell within the extended period of limitation from March 15 2020, to February 28,.2022."
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and held that the provisional attachment of Karti Chidambaram's assets, including his 50% share in the Jor Bagh property in New Delhi valued at ₹16.05 crore and multiple bank accounts with Indian Overseas Bank in Chennai, would continue.
However, the Tribunal granted some relief in so far as the possession of the property is concerned. It had, in its earlier order, protected the possession of the property by granting status quo. While noting this interim protection would cease with the disposal of the appeal, the Tribunal clarified that such possession "can henceforth be taken only if exceptional reasons exist," referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India (2022).
Delivering its final order on October 29, the Tribunal comprising Member (Judicial) Rajesh Malhotra and Member (Administrative) Balesh Kumar stated that although the prosecution complaint was filed on June 1, 2020, more than 365 days after the Adjudicating Authority's confirmation order dated March 29, 2019, the period between March 15, 2020 and February 28, 2022 stood excluded for all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings owing to pandemic-related restrictions.
The appeal was argued on behalf of Karti P. Chidambaram by Advocates Arshdeep Khurana, Akshat Gupta, and Sidak Singh Anand, who contended that the attachment had lapsed automatically as the ED failed to file its complaint within the prescribed 365-day period.
They relied on previous Tribunal decisions and the Supreme Court's ruling in S. Kasi v. State to assert that the COVID limitation orders applied only to litigants and not to executive actions like the filing of prosecution complaints.
Appearing for the Enforcement Directorate, Advocates Zoheb Hossain, Vivek Gurnani, and Kanishk Maurya countered the argument, emphasising that the lockdown had severely restricted the movement and functioning of courts. They maintained that the ED's action was protected under the Supreme Court's suo motu order extending the limitation during the pandemic.
Upholding the ED's position, the Tribunal observed, "The coverage of the Supreme Court's order dated 10.01.2022 was wide enough to allow the filing of the prosecution complaint under PMLA beyond 365 days of the passing of the impugned order, as long as such period fell within the extended period of limitation from March 15 2020, to February 28,.2022."
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and held that the provisional attachment of Karti Chidambaram's assets, including his 50% share in the Jor Bagh property in New Delhi valued at ₹16.05 crore and multiple bank accounts with Indian Overseas Bank in Chennai, would continue.
However, the Tribunal granted some relief in so far as the possession of the property is concerned. It had, in its earlier order, protected the possession of the property by granting status quo. While noting this interim protection would cease with the disposal of the appeal, the Tribunal clarified that such possession "can henceforth be taken only if exceptional reasons exist," referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India (2022).
