M/s.Shriram Chits (P) Ltd., Jammikunta v. Smt.Pallerla Padma and 3 others
Case at a glance
- Bench
- N R L NAGESWARA RAO
Provisions considered
- Chit Funds Act, 1982 s. 85
- Limitation Act, 1963 s. 14
Judgment
Cause title
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3575 of 2012 Between: M/s.Shriram Chits (P) Ltd., Jammikunta, Rep.by its Senior Manager V.Ramesh And Smt. Pallerla Padma and 3 others The Court made the following: ..... PETITIONER
RESPONDENTS
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3575 of 2012
ORDER:
The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated
10.07.2012 in an unnumbered suit in C.F.No.52/2012 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad, Karimnagar District, returning the plaint. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs.97,872/- being the amount due under the chit transaction. The Court below has noticed that the date of chit agreement is subsequent to the Central Act, which has made applicable w.e.f.15.09.2008, therefore, the learned Junior Civil Judge found that the suit being filed after the enforcement of the Central Act, the proper Forum is the Registrar of Chits and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction under Sec.85 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982. The facts in this case are not in dispute. The date of commencement of the chit was 25.05.2009 as per the Certificate issued by the Registrar, by which date the Central Act came into force. Sec.9 of the Central Act clearly indicates as to when a chit agreement is said to have commenced, and it was only after the Foreman files a declaration to that effect with the Registrar. In the present case, the commencement of the chit is after the Central Act. There is a saving provision under Sec.90 of the Central Act to the effect that the amended Act will not apply to the chit transactions which are in operation on the date of the commencement of the Central Act. Therefore, evidently, when the commencement of the chit was after the Central Act, the saving provision under Sec.90 has no application. In view of the above circumstances, the order of the Court below cannot be faulted and the revision petitioner/plaintiff has to approach the Registrar. The revision petitioner/plaintiff will be entitled to refund of the Court fee paid on the suit. The period of pendency of the proceedings in the Court below and in this Court shall be excluded under Sec.14 of the Limitation Act. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. Dated: 08.08.2012 Dsr ____________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.