Shri Karti P. Chidambaram v. The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement New Delhi

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) - Section 8(3)(a), Section 5, Section 17, Section 18 - Limitation for filing prosecution complaint - Confirmation of provisional attachment - Covid-19 pandemic - Extension of limitation by Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition

(C) No. 3 of 2020 - Period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 excluded for judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings - Applicability to executive action of filing prosecution complaint - Distinction between personal liberty (default bail) and property rights (attachment) - Interpretation of Section 8(3)(a) - Requirement that attachment continues during investigation for not exceeding 365 days or pendency of proceedings before a court. (Paras 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13)

(B) Appeal - Scope - Appellate Tribunal considered whether filing of prosecution complaint after 365 days from confirmation order is valid in light of Supreme Court’s Covid-19 extension orders - Held that the extension order applies to the filing of prosecution complaint under PMLA, as it covers all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, and the extraordinary circumstances justify exclusion of the lockdown period. (Paras 13, 14)

(C) Interpretation - The Supreme Court order in Suo Motu Writ Petition

(C) No. 3 of 2020 cannot be narrowly construed; full effect must be given to its purpose and object - The order was intended to obviate hardships due to Covid-19, and its coverage includes the filing of charge-sheets/prosecution complaints by investigating agencies. (Para 13)

Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged the order dated 29.03.2019 of the Adjudicating Authority under PMLA confirming provisional attachment of his properties (land in Jorbagh, New Delhi, and several bank accounts). The appeal was confined to the sole ground that the prosecution complaint under PMLA was filed on 01.06.2020, i.e., after 430 days from the confirmation order, beyond the 365-day limit prescribed in Section 8(3)(a) of PMLA. The appellant relied on the Supreme Court’s order dated 10.01.2022 extending limitation for judicial/quasi-judicial proceedings from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, arguing it does not apply to executive action of filing prosecution complaint. The respondent contended that due to the nationwide lockdown and suspension of court functioning, the filing was within the extended period.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court’s extension order covers the filing of prosecution complaint under PMLA, as it is a proceeding in the nature of a quasi-judicial or judicial step. The judgment in S. Kasi (default bail) was distinguished as it involved personal liberty, whereas the present case concerns property rights. The Tribunal relied on its earlier decisions in Rakesh Tiwari and M/s Musaddilal Gems & Jewellers, which held that the Covid-19 period must be excluded. The fact that the prosecution complaint was actually filed on 01.06.2020 (during lockdown) does not negate the application of the extension; the period of limitation is extended, not the date of filing. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal.

Issues: (1) Whether the prosecution complaint under PMLA filed after 365 days from the confirmation order is invalid. (2) Whether the Supreme Court’s Covid-19 limitation extension order applies to the filing of prosecution complaint by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 8(3)(a) of PMLA. (3) Whether the ratio in S. Kasi (default bail) extends to property attachment cases.

Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court’s order extending limitation for all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings during the Covid-19 pandemic applies to the filing of a prosecution complaint under PMLA. The 365-day period under Section 8(3)(a) is not a rigid limit during the pandemic; the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 is excluded. The distinction between personal liberty and property rights justifies different treatment; the right to default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC is not analogous to continuation of attachment of property. Result : Appeal dismissed. Interim protection against eviction from the residential property discontinued, but possession may be taken only if exceptional reasons exist as per Vijay Madanlal Choudhary.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Appellant argued prosecution complaint filed beyond 365-day limit; respondent argued COVID-19 Supreme Court order extended limitation. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )

2. Appeal dismissed; attachment continues; possession only if exceptional reasons exist. (Para 14 , 15 )

3. Does the Supreme Court's COVID-19 extension of limitation apply to the time limit under Section 8(3)(a) PMLA for filing prosecution complaint?

Yes, the court held that the COVID-19 order extended limitation for executive actions like filing prosecution complaint, given extraordinary circumstances. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )

4. Is the principle of S. Kasi (default bail) applicable to property attachment under PMLA?

No, the court distinguished S. Kasi as it concerned personal liberty under Article 21, while property rights under Article 300-A are different. (Para 13 )

5. Should the Supreme Court's COVID-19 order be given a narrow interpretation?

No, the court held that the order should not be unnecessarily narrowed and full effect must be given, citing Prakash Corporates and Rakesh Tiwari. (Para 13 )

6. Under what circumstances can possession of attached property be taken after dismissal of appeal?

Possession can be taken only if exceptional reasons exist, following the Supreme Court's Vijay Madanlal Choudhary judgment. (Para 14 )

FINAL ORDER

29.10.2025

This Order disposes of the Appeal No. FPA-PMLA-3000/DLI/2019 filed by Shri Karti P. Chidambaram, against the Order dated 29.03.2019 (Impugned Order) passed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority (AA) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) in the Original Complaint No. 1045/2018 (OC). The Provisional Attachment Order No.09/2018 dated 10.10.2018 (PAO) was confirmed vide the Impugned Order. The properties of the Appellant for which the provisional attachment have been confirmed vide the Impugned Order are listed as follows:

(A) Land and property 115-A Block 172 Jorbagh, New Delhi- 110003 50%, share of Shri Karti P. Chidambaram, Rs. 16.05 crore as per income tax return of Shri Karti P. Chidambaram, Sale deed through Sh. S. Bhaskararaman, General Attorney of Sh. Karti P. Chidambaram and Smt. Nalini Chidambaram registered vide No.7796 in Book No. I, Volume No. 13,445 on page 165 to 184 dated 22.8.2014 with Sub Registrar (V), Delhi, Shri Karti P. Chidambaram and Smt. Nalini Chidambaram.

(B) Indian Overseas Bank, Nungambakkam Branch, 109, Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai- 600034, Sh. Karti P Chidambaram, A/c No. 018304000002390 amount of Rs. 93,51,961.

(C) Indian Overseas Bank, Nungambakkam Branch, 109, Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai- 600034, Sh. Karti P Chidambaram, A/c No. 018304000002391 amount of Rs. 93,51,961.

(D) Indian Overseas Bank Nungambakkam Branch, 109, Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai- 600034, Sh. Karti P Chidambaram, A/c No. 018304000002392 amount of Rs. 93,51,961.

(E) Indian Overseas Bank, Nungambakkam Branch, 109, Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai- 600034, Sh. Karti P Chidambaram, A/c No. 018304000002393 amount of Rs. 93,51,961.

(F) Indian Overseas Bank Nungambakkam Branch, 109, Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai- 600034, Sh. Karti P Chidambaram, A/c No. 018304000002394 amount of Rs. 93,51,961.

(G) Indian Overseas Bank, Nungambakkam Branch, 109, Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai- 600034, Sh. Karti P Chidambaram, A/c No. 018304000002395 amount of Rs. 93,51,961.

(H) Indian Overseas Bank, Nungambakkam Branch, 109, Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai- 600034, Sh. Karti P Chidambaram, A/c No. 018304000002396 amount of Rs. 62,34,641.

2. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant stated that while the Impugned Order was passed on 29.03.2019, the ED filed its Prosecution Complaint under PMLA on 01.06.2020 i.e. after 430 days of the passing of the Impugned Order. Ld. Counsel argued that Section 8 (3) (a) of PMLA stipulates that the attachment after its confirmation by the AA, shall continue during investigation for a period not exceeding 365 days. He further argued that the continued attachment of the properties, including the Jor Bagh House belonging to the Appellant, post 29.03.2020, was bad in law. He contended that the Impugned Order ought to be set aside on this ground alone and the attached properties ought to have been released. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant confined his arguments to the provisions of Section 8 (3) (a) of PMLA. On being asked by the Bench, Ld. Counsel for the Appellant pressed for making arguments on this sole point relating to filing of the Prosecution Complaint under PMLA beyond the stipulated period. He clarified that no other point made in the pleadings is being pressed upon.

3. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant dwelt at length on why the Impugned Order be set aside since the Prosecution Complaint under PMLA was filed on 01.06.2020 which was much after 365 days of the passing of the Impugned Order on 29.03.2019. In this regard, Ld. Counsel drew attention to the Order dated 10.01.2022 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, whereby, it was directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi- judicial proceedings. The Order further

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(ATFP) 13395

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY
Balesh Kumar, Member, Rajesh Malhotra, Member
Shri Karti P. Chidambaram v. The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement New Delhi
FPA-PMLA-3000/DLI/2019

The Supreme Court's Covid-19 limitation extension order applies to filing prosecution complaint under PMLA Section 8(3)(a), extending the 365-day period for attachment confirmation.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

3. Does the Supreme Court's COVID-19 extension of limitation apply to the time limit under Section 8(3)(a) PMLA for filing prosecution complaint?

4. Is the principle of S. Kasi (default bail) applicable to property attachment under PMLA?

5. Should the Supreme Court's COVID-19 order be given a narrow interpretation?

6. Under what circumstances can possession of attached property be taken after dismissal of appeal?

2025 Supreme(Online)(ATFP) 13395

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTYBalesh Kumar, Member, Rajesh Malhotra, MemberShri Karti P. Chidambaram v. The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement New DelhiFPA-PMLA-3000/DLI/2019

The Supreme Court's Covid-19 limitation extension order applies to filing prosecution complaint under PMLA Section 8(3)(a), extending the 365-day period for attachment confirmation.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

3. Does the Supreme Court's COVID-19 extension of limitation apply to the time limit under Section 8(3)(a) PMLA for filing prosecution complaint?

4. Is the principle of S. Kasi (default bail) applicable to property attachment under PMLA?

5. Should the Supreme Court's COVID-19 order be given a narrow interpretation?

6. Under what circumstances can possession of attached property be taken after dismissal of appeal?

Cases Referred (2)

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR FORFEITED PROPERTY
Balesh Kumar, Member, Rajesh Malhotra, Member
Shri Karti P. Chidambaram v. The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement New Delhi
FPA-PMLA-3000/DLI/2019