S.Jayaseelan v. The Secretary To Govt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 10.01.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI W.P.No.3178 of 2019 and WMP.No.3435 of 2019 S.Jayaseelan ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The Secretary to Government, Department of Commercial Taxes and Registration, Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2. The Deputy Registrar of Chits, (Administration), Arbitration Cases, Tindivanam.
3. Sriram Chits Tamil Nadu Private Ltd., Rep. By its Branch Manager, No.76-C, Perumal Koil Street, Tindivanam.
4. R.Subramanian
5. J.Deivanathan
6. R.Anthony
7. A.Nalina Jesulin ... Respondents Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the first respondent pertaining to his proceedings in G.O.(2D) No.79 dated 14.10.2015 and quash the same as illegal and consequently, direct the first respondent to take the appeal filed by the petitioner as per Section 70 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 for fresh hearing by condoning delay in filing of the appeal.
For Petitioners : Mrs.C.Jaya For Respondents : Mr.R.Kumaravel RR1 & 2 Additional Government Pleader Mr.K.V.Anantha Krishnan R3
O R D E R
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash the G.O. Passed by the first respondent in G.O.(2D) No.79 dated 14.10.2015 and to direct the first respondent to take the appeal filed by the petitioner as per Section 70 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 for fresh hearing by condoning delay in filing of the appeal.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the third respondent is a chit company registered under the Companies Act. The petitioner was joined in the chit, which was conducted by the third respondent for the total value of Rs.10 Lakhs and the subscription payable for the said chit would be Rs.20,000/- per month. At the 15th installment i.e. on 06.11.2010, the petitioner had bid the chit at a discount of Rs.3,85,000/-. The 3rd respondent is liable to pay a sum of Rs.6,15,000/- as bid amount to the petitioner. But the 3rd respondent did not pay the amount. Hence, the petitioner had executed and registered the mortgage by deposit of title deed in favour of the 3rd respondent on 07.02.2011 with regard to his plot measuring an extent of 1800 sq. ft. comprised in Plot No.98 at Sanjeevi Nagar, Manur Village, Tindivanam Taluk.
Even then, the third respondent has not paid the bid amount to the petitioner and forced him to pay the balance chit amount, for which, the 3rd respondent filed a claim petition before the Arbitrator viz., the second respondent herein with false allegations and claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and interest at the rate of 24% of Rs.1,20,000/- together a sum of Rs.6,20,000/- as against the petitioner and the guarantors, who are the respondents 4 to 7 herein. In the said arbitration proceedings, the petitioner was not served with any notice of summons, an ex-parte award was passed by the second respondent on 15.10.2012 as against the petitioner. Aggrieved over the said ex-parte order, the petitioner filed appeal before the first respondent along with condone delay petition and the same was dismissed on 14.10.2015.
In the meantime, the 3rd respondent had filed the execution petition in E.P.no.131 of 2016 before the Principal Sub Court, Tindivanam against the guarantors, the respondents 4 to 7 herein and the same is pending. The petitioner has also filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Tindivanam against the 3rd respondent and the same is also pending. Further, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the proceedings in G.O.2D. No.79 dated 14.10.2015 passed by the first respondent.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 3rd respondent, fraudulently, obtained an ex-parte award dated 15.10.2012 before the second respondent and also filing an execution petition against the guarantors to recover the claim amount, which is unfair. The first respondent, failed to considering these facts, dismissed the condone delay petition
and rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 70 of the Chit Funds Act as time barred, which is not sustainable one. The third respondent, before the second respondent, in the claim petition, made false allegation against the petitioner. Therefore, the learned counsel prays to allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned order passed by the first respondent.
4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Government submitted that the the first respondent has rightly rejected the appeal, which was filed by the petitioner as the appeal was filed with a delay of 2 years 4 months and 8 days. The first respondent, after conducting thorough enquiry, passed the impugned order. During enquiry, the petitioner herein has not furnished any documentary evidence in support of his claim. During the arbitration proceedings, the second respondent has sent notice to the petitioner and the same was not received by the petitioner. The second respondent has also properly enquired the matter and passed an ex-parte order. There is no fault on the award and the impugned order. Hence, the learned counsel prays to dismiss the writ petition.
5. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that the second respondent has clearly stated in the award that the respondents 1, 3, 4 therein have received notice on 13.08.2012 and even then, they did not appear before the Arbitrator and therefore, the second respondent passed an exparte award. Challenging the said award, the petitioner filed appeal with a delay of 763 days. After enquiry, the first respondent have also rightly dismissed the appeal as the petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence and the appeal has been filed beyond the prescribed time limit.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent and perused the materials available on record.
7. The third respondent is a chit company and the petitioner was joined the chit, which was conduced by the third respondent. At the 15 the installment, the petitioner had bid the chit at a discount of Rs.3,85,000/- and the 3rd respondent is liable to pay a sum of Rs.6,15,000/- as bid amount after deducting the discount amount of Rs.3,85,000/-. The 3rd respondent has also paid Rs.6,15,000/- and executed a promissory note in favour of the petitioner for the due amount. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that the petitioner has not paid the due amount and therefore, he filed a claim petition before the second respondent. During trial, the second respondent ordered notice to the respondents therein (including the petitioner herein) in the address mentioned by the petitioner at the time of joining the chit. Accordingly, the third respondent proceeded the claim petition
against the petitioner and sent notice to the petitioner. However, the said notice has been returned. Thereafter, the second respondent ordered to take paper publication. Even thereafter, the petitioner has not taken any steps to file appropriate petition before the second respondent. Hence, the second respondent has passed an ex-parte award on 15.10.2012. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed appeal before the first respondent in the year 2014 with a delay of more than two years and the said delay was not properly explained. Therefore, the first respondent dismissed the appeal on 14.10.2015. Further, the petitioner filed the present writ petition before this Court only in the year 2019.
However, the petitioner has not given any explanation for the delay in filing the appeal and he has not filed any documentary evidence for his claim. Further, the impugned order was passed in the year 2014 and this writ petition has been filed only in the year 2019. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, there is no proper explanation given for the delay in filing the writ petition. In the absence of proper explanation, this writ petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.
8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar rli To
1. The Secretary to Government, Department of Commercial Taxes and Registration, Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2. The Deputy Registrar of Chits, (Administration), Arbitration Cases, Tindivanam.
+1 cc to Mr.C.Jayachithra, Advocate Sr.NO. 2393 W.P.No.3178 of 2019 and WMP.No.3435 of 2019 PMK(CO) A.SK(10/06/2022)