Madras HC reserves orders on Nalini Chidambaram plea

Chennai: The Madras high court has reserved orders on a petition from senior advocate Nalini Chidambaram, wife of former Union Minister P.Chidambaram, which sought to quash the summons dated September 7 issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

Justice T.S.Sivagnanam reserved orders after hearing elaborate arguments from both sides. According to Nalini, she was engaged by one Manoranjana Sinh of GNN Private Limited in Guwahati to appear before the Company Law Board and Delhi high court in the cases filed by her against her estranged husband Matang Sinh relating to a dispute concerning M/s Positive television and group of companies.

Meanwhile, Manoranjana Sinh and a Kolkatta based businessman Sudupto Sen entered into an agreement in June 2010 to take over Postive TV and its group of companies run by GNN. As per the agreement, Sudipto Sen agreed to legally assist Manoranjana Sinh and accordingly, through his real estate company—Saradha Realty India Ltd—paid the professional fees to Nalini, which came to about '1 crore, she added.

Nalini submitted that the professional fees thus received was accounted for in the books of her account and applicable income tax at the maximum rate of 30 percent plus surcharges on the said fees were paid while filing the returns.
While so, as Sudipto Sen allegedly defaulted in repayment of the principal and interest to his depositors, the CBI registered a case against him. During the course of investigation, the CBI obtained a statement from the petitioner on September 20, 2014.

As required by the CBI, she also submitted the documents. However, the ED started issuing summons from February onwards and the final one was dated September 7, requiring her to appear in person before it in Kolkatta with certain documents.  The repeated summons. seeking ‘explanation of submitted documents’. when the authorised representative has already explained the submitted documents in writing, were uncalled for.

Further, the direction to appear in person and not through an authorized representative and that too in Kolkatta reveal that the ED was harbouring a malicious and a sinister design against her in violation of her fundamental and legal rights.  By no stretch of imagination can a lawyer be investigated under the PML Act in connection with fees received for professional services.

Such an investigation against a lawyer in respect of fees received by cheques and duly accounted for and disclosed in the income tax returns was an unprecedented assault on the rights of lawyers and a grave threat to the independence of the profession, Nalini added.