G.R.Kalyani vs Salem Sri Ramavilas Chit Co Pvt. … on 18 June, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.06.2008
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN
Civil Revision Petition (NPD) Nos.1105, 1106, 
1717, 1718 and 1719 of 2002 
and connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions 

C.R.P (NPD) No.1105 of 2002

G.R.Kalyani 				.. Petitioner 

Vs.

1. Salem Sri Ramavilas Chit Co Pvt. Ltd.,
        Rep by its President / Foreman
    25, Arya Vysial Street,
    Shevapet, Salem.

2. S.Malliga
3. M.Sundararajan
4. M/s. Sri Ram Finance (Firm)
    28, (Upstair) Andal Street,
    Shevapet, Salem  2.
5. A.Karunakaran
6. B.Lakshmi
7. C.N.Parvathi
8. S.Vasudevan
9. S.Hamsa 			         .. Respondents

(Respondents 2 to 9 are not
necessary party in the CRP. Hence
they are given up)

	Civil Revision Petition filed against the Order (Award) dated 18.02.2002 made in A.O.P.No.119 of 1999 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Chits, Salem (West).
C.R.P (NPD) No.1106 of 2002

G.R.Kalyani 				.. Petitioner 

Vs.

1. Salem Sri Ramavilas Chit Co Pvt. Ltd.,
        Rep by its President / Foreman
    25, Arya Vysial Street,
    Shevapet, Salem.

2. T.G.Dhakshinamoorthy 

3. M/s. Sri Ram Finance (Firm)
    28, (Upstair) Andal Street,
    Shevapet, Salem  2.
4. A.Karunakaran
5. B.Lakshmi
6. C.N.Parvathi
7. S.Vasudevan
8. S.Hamsa 			         .. Respondents

(Respondents 2 to 8 are not
necessary party in the CRP. Hence
they are given up)

	Civil Revision Petition filed against the Order (Award) dated 18.02.2002 made in A.O.P.No.120 of 1999 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Chits, Salem (West).

C.R.P (NPD) No.1717 of 2002

G.R.Kalyani 				.. Petitioner 

Vs.

1. Salem Sri Ramavilas Chit Co Pvt. Ltd.,
        Rep by its President / Foreman
    25, Arya Vysial Street,
    Shevapet, Salem.
2. S.Mahalakshmi Ammal 

3. M/s. Sri Ram Finance (Firm)
    28, (Upstair) Andal Street,
    Shevapet, Salem  2.
4. A.Karunakaran
5. B.Lakshmi
6. C.N.Parvathi
7. S.Vasudevan
8. S.Hamsa 			         .. Respondents

(Respondents 2 to 8 are not
necessary party in the CRP. Hence
they are given up)

	Civil Revision Petition filed against the Order (Award) dated 18.02.2002 made in A.O.P.No.12 of 2000 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Chits, Salem (West).

C.R.P (NPD) No.1718 of 2002

G.R.Kalyani 				.. Petitioner 

Vs.

1. Salem Sri Ramavilas Chit Co Pvt. Ltd.,
        Rep by its President / Foreman
    25, Arya Vysial Street,
    Shevapet, Salem.

2. R.Sathyanarayanan

3. M/s. Sri Ram Finance (Firm)
    28, (Upstair) Andal Street,
    Shevapet, Salem  2.
4. A.Karunakaran
5. B.Lakshmi
6. C.N.Parvathi
7. S.Vasudevan
8. S.Hamsa 			         .. Respondents
(Respondents 2 to 8 are not
necessary party in the CRP. Hence
they are given up)

	Civil Revision Petition filed against the Order (Award) dated 18.02.2002 made in A.O.P.No.13 of 2000 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Chits, Salem (West).
C.R.P (NPD) No.1719 of 2002

G.R.Kalyani 				.. Petitioner 

Vs.

1. Salem Sri Ramavilas Chit Co Pvt. Ltd.,
        Rep by its President / Foreman
    25, Arya Vysial Street,
    Shevapet, Salem.

2. P.Rajendran

3. M/s. Sri Ram Finance (Firm)
    28, (Upstair) Andal Street,
    Shevapet, Salem  2.
4. A.Karunakaran
5. B.Lakshmi
6. C.N.Parvathi
7. S.Vasudevan
8. S.Hamsa 			         .. Respondents

(Respondents 2 to 8 are not
necessary party in the CRP. Hence
they are given up)

	Civil Revision Petition filed against the Order (Award) dated 18.02.2002 made in A.O.P.No.13 of 2000 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Chits, Salem (West).
		For petitioner     : Mr.J.Balagopal in all the revision petitions 
		For respondents : Ms. Srividhya for R1 in all the revision petitions 
COMMON ORDER
	C.R.P (NPD) No.1105 of 2002 has been filed against the order, dated 18.02.2002 made in A.O.P.No.119 of 1999 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Chits, Salem (West), seeking to set aside the order (award), consequently, directing the authority to pass appropriate orders in the said A.O.P on merits, after considering the petitioner's objection. C.R.P (NPD) No.1106 of 2002 has been preferred against the award passed in A.O.P.No.120 of 1999 by the said Deputy Registrar on the said date. Similarly, C.R.P (NPD) Nos.1717, 1718 and 1719 of 2002 have been preferred against the order, dated 18.02.2002 passed in A.O.P.Nos. 12, 13 and 14 of 2000 respectively by the Deputy Registrar of Chits, Salem (West).

	2. In all these A.O.P cases, counter statements were filed by the petitioner on 20.10.2001, however, it is seen that the petitioner was set exparte on 26.11.2001. The petitioner herein subsequently filed applications to set aside the exparte orders passed on 24.12.2001, which were returned by the Deputy Registrar on 27.12.2001. From the impugned order, it is seen that the award was passed on 18.12.2002, without considering the objections raised by the petitioner herein in the counter statements. Aggrieved by which, all these Civil Revision Petitions have been filed.


	3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in all the revision petitions submitted that the Deputy Registrar of Chits, Salem (West) had failed to note that in the A.O.P proceedings, the petitioner has filed detailed counter statements, raising several legal objections. According to him, the petitioner herein was represented by the counsel on 18.02.2002 and interlocutory applications were filed in the batch of cases for adjournment of the enquiry, in view of the challenge made by the petitioner in all the cases against the order of the authority returning the petitions filed to set aside the exparte order, however, arbitrarily without jurisdiction, the impugned orders were passed, hence, the same are liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the A.O.P proceedings initiated by the Foreman was barred by limitation, however, no opportunity was given to the petitioner, which is against the basic principles of natural justice. According to the petitioner, the alleged guarantee letter is null and void and unenforcable, but that was not legally considered by the Deputy Registrar on merits. He has further contended that the claim made against the surety is not a dispute, within the meaning of Section 64 of the Act and therefore, there was no power / jurisdiction / authority, to arbitrate on the claim made by the Disputant / Respondent.

	4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has also produced a copy of the order, dated 08.11.2002 made in C.R.P.Nos.584 and 714 of 2002 by this Court in a similar matter. In the said order, relying on the decision, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., vs. R.Srinivasan, reported in 2000 (3) SCC 242, wherein it has been held that for the purpose of emphasising that any judicial body or authority, which has a duty to decide a lis between the parties, inherently possesses the power to dismiss the case in default, in the absence of the complainant and therefore, the court will be well within its jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint for non-prosecution. So also, it would have the inherent power and jurisdiction to restore the complaint on good cause being shown for the non-appearance of the complainant. This Court has further observed in the similar revision petition that the learned counsel appearing for the respondent in the said case also very vehemently submitted that the reasoning given by the Deputy Registrar for non-suiting the petitioner for the relief of setting aside the exparte order is factually incorrect  in the sense that on 26.11.2001 no final order has been passed in the application in A.O.P.No.122 of 1999. Hence, the order could not be sustained. 

	5. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent has not disputed that these Civil Revision Petitions are also based on similar facts and circumstances to be decided.




S.TAMILVANAN, J.

tsvn

6. In view of the earlier decision rendered by this Court in a similar matter, I am of the view to decide the same, as per the earlier order referred to in C.R.P.Nos. 584 and 714 of 2002 by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. In the result, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed and the impugned orders passed by the authority are set aside. Connected civil miscellaneous petitions are closed. The Deputy Registrar of Chits (West) Salem is directed to dispose of the Arbitration Petition in A.O.P.Nos. 119 of 1999, 120 of 1999, 12 of 2000, 13 of 2000 and 14 of 2000 on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, since the matters are pending for a long time. Considering the facts and circumstances, both the parties are directed to bear their own costs.

18.06.2008
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes

tsvn
To
The Deputy Registrar of Chits
Salem (West).

C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.1105, 1106,
1717, 1718 and 1719 of 2002