Karti P. Chidambaram. File
| Photo Credit: R. Ashok
Congress MP representing Sivaganga constituency, Karti P. Chidambaram, has approached the Madras High Court challenging the attachment of ₹90.08 lakh, from two of his bank accounts, by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) in connection with a money laundering probe initiated on the basis of the Aircel-Maxis deal by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
First Division Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan admitted an appeal preferred by the MP against a June 5, 2025, order passed by the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act (SAFEMA) Appellate Tribunal in New Delhi, which also deals with statutory appeals under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The civil miscellaneous appeal, in the nature of a second appeal, was entertained after hearing senior counsel Vijay Narayan, assisted by advocate N.R.R. Arun Natarajan, for the MP; ED Special Public Prosecutor N. Ramesh was permitted to take notice on behalf of the agency. The Division Bench gave three weeks’ time for the ED to file its reply, and adjourned the hearing thereafter.
The CBI probe
The court was informed that the CBI had registered the First Information Report (FIR) in the Aircel-Maxis case on October 9, 2011, for offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The charge was related to a 2005 deal, which emanated from Malaysia-based Maxis Deal Communications for a 100% takeover of India-based telecommunications operator Aircel Limited.
A charge-sheet was filed on August 29, 2014, against former Union Telecommunication Minister Dayanidhi Maran, his elder brother and Sun TV Network head Kalanithi Maran, and a few others. However, on February 2, 2017, a special court in New Delhi discharged the Maran brothers and two others from the CBI’s case as well as the consequent PMLA case registered by the ED on February 7, 2012.
Subsequently, both the CBI and ED challenged the discharge by filing criminal revision petitions before the Delhi High Court, which, on May 19, 2017, refused to stay the discharge order. The ED on July 18, 2017, went on appeal to the Supreme Court where the proceedings were still pending. In the meantime, the ED’s investigation revealed the involvement of various individuals who had not been named in the CBI’s charge-sheet.
Attachment order
Therefore, it passed a provisional attachment order on September 23, 2017, attaching ₹90.08 lakh from two bank accounts of Mr. Karti Chidambaram and another ₹26 lakh from the bank account of Advantage Strategic Consulting Private Limited. The provisional order was referred to the Adjudicating Authority, under the PMLA, for confirmation, and it was confirmed on March 12, 2018, after due hearing.
Mr. Karti Chidambaram challenged the confirmation order before the SAFEMA Appellate Tribunal on the ground that he was not named in the CBI’s charge-sheet and that even the ED had not completed its probe and filed a prosecution complaint (similar to a charge-sheet) against him when the provisional attachment order was passed. He pointed out that the prosecution complaint against him was filed only on June 13, 2019.
He also argued that the ED ought to have filed the prosecution complaint at least within 90 days from the date of passing of the provisional order. However, his arguments did not cut ice with the SAFEMA Appellate Tribunal, which concluded that the ED was entitled to attach properties of individuals even during the course of investigation, even if they had not been named in the predicate offence.
The New Delhi-based appellate tribunal arrived at such a conclusion on the basis of Supreme Court’s 2022 judgment in VIjay Madanlal Choudhary’s case (considered an authority on PMLA) and hence, the present appeal before the Madras High Court.
Published – December 09, 2025 05:43 pm IST
