HC tells ED to keep summons to Nalini Chidambaram in abeyance

: The Madras High Court on Wednesday directed the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) to keep in abeyance the summons issued to Nalini Chidambaram, senior advocate and wife of former Union Finance Minister P. Chidambaram, under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Justice T.S. Sivagnanam passed the interim direction while admitting two petitions moved by Ms. Chidambaram assailing the summons issued by the ED for receiving Rs. 1 crore from Saradha Realty India Limited, a company of the Saradha Group, which is stuck in the Saradha Chit Fund scam.

The judge also directed the ED to file counter affidavits within four weeks and posted the pleas to November 8 for further hearing.

According to the petitioner, Manoranjana Sinh of GNN Pvt. Ltd. in Guwahati and Sudipto Sen of Bengal Media Pvt. Ltd. in Kolkata, entered into an agreement in June 2010 to take over Positive TV, a television channel, and its group of companies, run by GNN. As part of the agreement, Mr. Sudipto Sen agreed to fund the legal expenses of Ms. Manoranjana Sinh in contesting cases against her husband pending before the Company Law Board, New Delhi, and the Delhi High Court.

Since the petitioner was representing the cases on behalf of Ms. Manoranjana Sinh, Mr. Sudipto Sen has paid the professional fees from time to time, which amounted to Rs. 1 crore.

Noting that the professional fees thus received were accounted for and applicable income tax was paid, senior counsel for the petitioner said, “If summons are to be issued in such cases, then every lawyer who deals with criminal cases involving economic offences would be under the threat of being exposed to the provisions of the PMLA.”

Representing the ED, the Additional Solicitor General contended that only summons has been issued by an officer, who is stationed at Kolkata, and there is no order passed.

“It is only a summons directing appearance. Therefore, apart from the petition not being maintainable against the summons, it will not lie before this court and this court would not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the relief sought for,” he added.

Recording the submissions, Justice Sivagnanam said, “This court is of the considered view that the ED should file their counter affidavits not only meeting the factual allegations made, but also the legal contentions raised, and it is only thereafter, this court can adjudicate and come to a conclusion as to whether and which of the submissions are acceptable and justifiable.”