The High Court · 2025

Sri. Jamalpur Chandra Shekhar, S/o J Prakash' Aged about 45 years' Occ' il 5"lri"'5, ru"' ir. r'r". r a-z-6i +ibl,c' H;n"'n Nasa-r' U ppuguda' Hvderabad' Telangana State-500 053. ...PETiTIONER/OPPONENT No' 1 AND '1 . lvl/s Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Chit Fun(s (Telangana) Pvt Ltd ' Having its Reod.office at z-1-Ora,NEEg7, 3;d Ftcior,'Niligirl Bl6ck, Adithya. Enclave, i;'":;#i, rivi"'"uro,'ii;;;.; state-soo oia' nep' Bv its Authorised 3fi;ifijP.'hr;h; s;;dhl 5/o Ramachander Rao' Fl/o Hvderabad' ...RESPONDENT/DISPUTANT

2. Mr. Vattipally Vinay Bhushan, S/o V' .Krishnamurthv a/a 46 years' FUo H.No.8-7-739/30/4/41, Ai;diiv'#6"' uppuguoa' Gowlipura' Hvderabad' Telangana State-500 053.

3. Mr. Mokala Venkatesh, S/o M Swamy, ala.46 ,yrs' Ft/o H'No'18-7-850/1/8' " $;;;;thintaoemv, d;lip,;;; iitatiiauao' relinsana state-500 053' 4. Mr. Gowlikar Dheeraj Lal, S/o G Mohan Pelsha.-d' a/a 46 vears' Rlio H'No 18- 7-466t52tA, Hanuman ffig"ai [ililda' co"tiriura' Hvderabad' Telangana State-500 053.

5. Smt. Jamalpur Shashi Rekha, W/o Late-J Prakash' Aged about.63 Vea13' " 6;;:'irou.5-uoto, R/;' H.i[o'i8-7-at+Ne' Hanuman Nagar' Uppusuoa' 6. Mr. H.Harinarayan Rai, S/o H.Bansilal, a/a 6-6 ye1^sl gg H No'3-3-836' " iirthbiilr?r, ki6r,igrori'Hvderabad' Telangana state-500 027' iyOeraOaA, Telangana State-500 053' 7 B Mr. H.Sandeeo Rai. S/o H Harinaray€n Raj, a/a 4l years, Rio H.No.3_3_g36, Kuthbiguda, Khchi{uda, Hyoerioia,'feh.s,i;" Sijtd-i oo o2z . Deputy Registrat of Chits/Arbitrator, Ranga Reddy District at K.ukatpaily. (RB impleadecl as per c.o. dt. 24.1.2s in rA.No. 3 of 2o24in cRp. 3s1st24) (R2 to R7 are not necessary parties in this Revision petition) ...RESPONDENTS/OPPONENTS No. 2 to 7 lA NO: 2 bF 2024 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to srAY oF ALL FURTHER PROCEEDTNGS in ARB.petition No.193/2023 on the file of Deputy Registrar of chits/Arbitrator, Ranga Reddy District, at Kukatpaily, pending d isposal of CRp. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri p. Venkanna Counsel for the Respondent No. A: Sri e. Tirupathi Reddy, Gp for Arbitration The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY Civil Revision Petition No.3519 of2024 ORDER : The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner / Opponent No.l under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying the Court to allow the Revision and direct respondent No.B (Deputy Registrar of Chits / Arbitration, Ranga Reddy District) to consider the I.A. frled in Arbitration Claim Petition No'i93 of 2023 on lO.Og.2024 before the Deputy Registrar / Arbitrator, Ranga Reddy District, at KukatPallY.

2. Heard Mr. P' Venkanna, learned counsel for the petitioner / Opponent No.1; and Mr.G. Thirupathi Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Arbitration, for respondent No.B.

3. The petitioner herein seems to be aggrieved by the manner in which the respondent No'B (Deputy Registrar' Chits and Arbitration) proceeds while deciding the arbitration cases particularly that which arises out of the Chit Funds Act, l9tl2 (for short, 'the Act')' I .r_ * 2 P5K,J ctp_3519_)-o24

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is the .usual practice with respondent No.B that imrnediately after the statements are recorded ald the disputant / claimant fi 1es an afhdavit in support of his evidence, the matter is posted straightaway for passing of the Award. It is specificzrlly contended that respondent No.g (who has since been impleaded as respondent No.g herein) does not fix the matter lor cross-examination of claimant / witness or for evidence of respondents and thus the petitioner herein is deprived of his valuable right to defence before the arbitration proceedings arising out of the Act.

5. Mr.G. Thirupathi Reddy, learned Government pleader for Arbitration, entered appearance on behalf of respondent No.S on rhe forenoon session.

6. During the forenoon session, this Court had requested the learned Government pleader for Arbrtration, appearing for respondent No.g, to hnd out whether the respondent No.B had passed a,y Award in the instant case, i.e., in Arbitration Claim petition No.193 ol 2023. Post-lunch session, learned counsel reported that he could not get positive information from the respondent No.B J P5K,J cfp-3519 2024 (Deputy Registrar) as he was not available on seat, and that the concerned person also was not in a position to confirm whether any Award has been passed in Arbitration Claim Petition No.193 of 2023 or not. Nonetheless, the lehrned Government Pieader for Arbitration had informed the Court that he has already instructed respondent No'8 (Deputy Registrar) not to proceed any further in Arbitration Claim Petition No.193 of 2023 inasmuch as not to pass any Award till he receives a speaking order from the Court; and which fact has been accepted by the respondent No'B (Deputy Registrar), subject to verification if any Award has been passed or not.

7. At this juncture, this Court has no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that the manner in which the respondent No.8 (Deputy Registrar) proceeds and decides the arbitration petition is unheard of'

8. Any proceedings be it judicial or quasi-judicial or even administrative in nature, if the final outcome has an adverse effect on one of the parties to the proceedings, principles of natural justice is bound to be followed by the authorities concerned. 4 PSK,J <t p_)519 2024

9. In the instant case, the proceedings in the arbitration petition are always expected to be pronounced by the respondent No. B (Deputy Registrar) after hearing both pa-rties anci after permitting both parties to lead evidence ald to also cross-examine either side so as to bring on record the correct factual matrix of the case

10. In the instant case, this Court does not hnd that there being any proceedings on record to show that after the claimant had filed the evidence in the forrn of an affidavit, or any further proceedings having been drawn ald proceeded with by the respondent No.B t,Deputy Registrar) in the factual backdrop of the case. If a,,. Award is passed rvithout any proceedings being drawn up by the concerned authorities, i.e., without an opportunity to cross-examine a witness and also without al opportunity to the other side in leading evidence, such proceedings without hesrtation can be held to be per se illegal and contrary to the prescribed procedures to be foriowed more particularly in arbitration proceedings.

11. In the teeth of the submissions made by the learned Government pleader for Arbitration, for respondent No.g, 5 PSK,J ctp ]519 _2o24 the Civil Revision Petition stands allowed with a direction to respondent No.S (Deputy Registrar) to forthwith permit the petitioner herein to cross-examine the witness of respondent No. I (claimant/ disputant) and thereafter the petitioner be permitted to adduce evidence, and the witnesses if any of the petitioner cal also be subjected to cross-examination; and only after such exercise is undertaken should the respondent No.B (Deputy Registrar) fix the case for arguments of both sides and thereafter the final award can be passed in accordance with law based on the evidence which has come on record. L2. With these observations, the Revision stands allowed' No costs.

13. As a sequel, miscellaleous applications pending if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// NKAR SdI P. GOWRI S ASSISTANT RE STRAR SECTION OFFICER To VH 1 2 a 4 .+[,:B"iJllE",'i3'Ifl/fi [iil',3i:'tu[?.Eqfftl'F'JL'L1l[:i"XB3|";'o"' . il;;6i; sti'P.Venkanna, Advocate [oPUC] . Two CD CoPies \ HIGH COURT DATED: 21102t202s /--l ( >it' 24 til 2ffi /:,_,:' \