Mr Samuel J v. The State of Telangana

M/s. Suman Chit Fund Pvt Ltd., R/o at4- 1- 82Bl9,2nd Floor, Pasha Chambers, J. N. Road, Hyderabad and its branch at Abids Rep by its Director Sri. Y. Venkateshh S/o Y. Krishna Murthy The Depot Manager, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Ranigunj- I Depot, Secundrabad ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the. affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the Writ of Mandamus by declaring the award passed in ABR/CF/No 22512022 dt 14.06.2023 by the 3rd respondent acting as an arbitrator for an amount of Rs. 7,68,8431- against the petitioner including the issuance of the consequential recovery certificate U/S 71 of the Chit Fund Act without there being any notification under Sub Section 1 of Section 61 of Chit Fund Act,'1 982 is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction consequently declare the 3rd respondent have no jurisdiction to entertain and pass the Award in ABR/CF/No. 22512022 dl. 14 ! i _ r_"'.aq*Bl

#06. 2023 at the instance of the 4th respondent without fl-:re being any Gazette notification as per sub sectionl of Section 61 and Rule 1g of A. p. chit Fund Rules, 2008 consequentiar execution proceedings No. l oii I of 2024 on the fire of XXll Junior civil Judge, city civir court at Hyderabad is ar; r iflegar and unrawful. IANO:1OF2 025 Petition under Section 1 51 cpc praying that in the ) .cumstances stated in the affidavit fired rn support of the petition, the High court r ay be preased to stay of all further proceedings in pursuant to the impugrr r d award passed in ABR/GF/No. 22512022, dt. 14. 06. 2023 as fired by the 4tr respondent incruding stay of Execution Proceedings in Ep No. 106212024 on th. fire of the XXI Junior civil Judge' city civir courts, At, Hyderabad pending disp rsar of the main writ Petition lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Between: M/s Suman Chit Fund pvt Ltd., R/o at 4_ 1_ Bz1lg,2nd F oor, pasha Chambers, J N Road. Hvderabad and its brinii'rlAtn , R;p b, ii. Drrecror Sri. Y Venkateshh S/o y'Krishni tr/urthy - - -" ""'" AND ...PETITIONER/ RESP,t NDENTS No.4 1 Mr. Samuel. J. S/o John Francis Aged about 54 years. Occ RTC Employee Resident of H No. 2- 3- 477, namgoirapei, nrff"6rtti iecundrabad IH,P_llf^._ll:lg!g:1, R.ep_by, its principte Secretary it amps and r<egrsrrarton(Hegtstration_ ll) Department, Secretariat,-Ht,, erabad. The Registrar of Chits, Government of Telangana, O/o. l-l e Commissioner and tnspector Generat Registration a"o Siimii 'rii The Deputy Registrar of Chits/Arbitrator, Red Hills, Hyde,i bad The Depot Manaoer. Telanqana State Road Transport C,; poration, Ranigunj_ I Depot, Secundr5bad J.'irtr.t .t, Hyderabad 2 3 4 5 ...RESPONDT NTS/ PETITIONER Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circrr nstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court r ay be preased to ' :i-lli-l1..lf:i,r..i strffi.'l--r vacate the interim order dated 04.09.2025 passed in r.A No.1 of 2o2s in wp No 26514 ot 2025 and dismiss the main writ petition, Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VSRMV PRASAD SANAKA counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3:Gp FoR srAMps AND REGlsrRATloN Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI KOPPULA GOPAL, SC FOR SUMAN CHITFUNDS Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI R.ANURAG, SC FOR TGSRTC The Court made the following: ORDER :rE- ,;:ri+-' r) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF':ELANGANA AT I{YDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA X ARTHIK qIRIT PETITION No.26514 OF 2(l: ?5 THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUART, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY {i X Between: Mr.Samuel.J AND The State of Telangana, rep. by its PrinciPal Secretary, Revenue Departme nt, Secretariat, Hyderabad and (4) others ORDER: Petitioner Respondents This Writ Petition is hled seeking issuance ( f arr appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly, a w:i. of mandamus, decla-ring the award passed in ABR/CF/No.')ZSl2022, dated

14.06.2023 by the 3'd respondent acting as an r rbitrator for an arnount of Rs.7,68,843/-, against the petitiont: , including the issuance of the consequential recovery certificate t nder Section 71 of the Chit Fund Act, 1982, without there beinS; any notification under Sub Section 1 of Section 6 1 of Chit Fun I Act, 1982, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction conseql( ntl1- declare the

3.d respondent have no jurisdiction to entertain anc pass the award I I I I 2 !. in ABR/CF/NI.225/2O22, dated i4.06.2023 at the instarce of the 4m respondent, without there being any Gazette notification as per sub section 1 of Section 61 and RuIe 48 of A.P.Chit Fund Rules, 2008 consequential execution proceedings No. 1O62 of 2024 on the file of XXII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad as illegal ald unlaw{ul.

#2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, on a perusal of the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.4, particularly Para a(ii) and Para 6, it is evident that respondent No.4 has followed the prescribed procedure and there is no violation of Rule 55(2) of the Chit Fund Rules.

#3. In support of the said submission, the learned counsel dra',r,s the attention of this Court to Para 4(ii) and Para 6 of the counter affidavit, wherein it is stated as follows: "4(iif : I respectfully submit that subsequently the petrtioner along with the other opponents who executed a demand promissory note and other necessa-ry documents in favour of the 4th respondent company for regular payment of the future installments and the principal borrovrer who is the lst opponent in the award who paid only 15 installments and thereafter comnitted default rn paying the installrnents from 16th onwards ttrerefore the 4th respondent company issued a legal notice to all the opponents in the said arbitration case and even inspite of the notice all the opponents in the arbitration case including the writ petitioner herein did not pay any arnounts due to which the 4th respondent herein frled a 3 arbitration case before the 3rd respondent herein ax( after service of summons ald zrfter substitute service by way of p r- blishing in the news papers a1l tJ.e opponents are said ex parte ar i subsequently after taking into consideration of Ex Pl to P16 the ird responclent herein was pleased to pass an au, ard dated 14 -06.2O2I in arbitration case being ABR / CF No. 225 of 2022 by orderi.r I that the 4th respondent company is entitled to recover of Rs. 7,61t )43/- from the opponents 1 to 7 therein jointly and severally togethe- nterest@ lg%o per annum and principal amount.' "6. ln reply ro para No. 5 of the affidavit hled in sup ort of the writ petition it is not correct that no notice was served cr the petitioner but it is a fact that suflunons w.ere sent through reg stered post to the writ petitioner as well as the other opponents rn the above arbitration case as directed by the 3rd respondr:r t herein and summons were retumed unserved on the opponents t,2,S, and 7, surunons wcre served on the opponents No. 4 & 6 rnd sufiunons were not yet returned against the writ petitioner hereir due to which and abundant caution paper publication was also orct -ed against all the opponents including the writ petiiloner herein aJ r even in spite of the publication writ pet.itioner as well as the othr:r rpponents clid not appear before the 3rd respondent herein and :t ( y were set ex parte therelore the contention of the writ petitioner hat no notice were served on him is false and baseless thereby the I l respondent herein vehemently denied the same. It is submitted :l at it G a fact that after ex parte award the 4th respondent herein fiI, d I.A No. 540 of 2023 under Rule 55 (2) of the Chit Fund Rules and i: turn the 3rd 1e^sg9nd9nt issued recovery certificate by virtue of prcc redings dated 12.O9.2023" f I

#4. Placing reliance on the same, it is cor I snded that due procedure as contemplated under Rule 55(2) ol the Chit Fund Rules has been duly followed by respondent No.,f and, therefore, the very basis of the writ petition does not survive.

#5. Having regard to the aforesaid submiss .ons and upon perusal of the materia,l available on record, this ( )ourt is of the considered vieu, that the respondent authorities hir'e followed the procedure contemplated under Rule 55(2) of the c: it Fund Rules. \ 4 Consequently, this Court does not find any merit in the writ pet1tlon.

#6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs SD/-A.H.S. GOWRI SHANKAR SSISTANT REGIST //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER C\ \ To, 1 2 3 4

#5. PMK BS TE One CC to SRI VSRMV PRASAD SANAKA, Advocate [OPUCJ One CC to SRI KOPPULA GOPAL, SC FOR SUMAN CHIT FUNDS IOPUC] One CC to SRI R.ANURAG, SC FOR TGSRTC [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR STAMPS & REGISTRATION, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTJ Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:1010212026 ORDER WP.No.26514 ot 2025 lHE S11 FI () (; I 2 *,,i )1176 ?' * .t iYryr.* DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS b."@ W '| t