G.R.Kalyani v. Salem Sri Ramavilas Chit Co Pvt. Ltd.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 18.06.2008CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANANCivil Revision Petition (NPD) Nos.1105, 1106, 1717, 1718 and 1719 of 2002 and connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions C.R.P (NPD) No.1105 of 2002G.R.Kalyani .. Petitioner (Opponent No.7)..Vs..1. Salem Sri Ramavilas Chit Co Pvt. Ltd., Rep by its President / Foreman 25, Arya Vysial Street, ..Respondent (Disputant) Shevapet, Salem.2. S.Malliga3. M.Sundararajan4. M/s. Sri Ram Finance (Firm) 28, (Upstair) Andal Street, Shevapet, Salem – 2.5. A.Karunakaran6. B.Lakshmi7. C.N.Parvathi8. S.Vasudevan9. S.Hamsa .. Respondents 2 to 9 (Opponent 1 to 6, 8 & 9) (Respondents 2 to 9 are notnecessary party in the CRP. Hencethey are given up) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Civil Revision Petition filed against the Order (Award) dated18.02.2002 made in A.O.P.No.119 of 1999 passed by the DeputyRegistrar of Chits, Salem (West).C.R.P (NPD) No.1106 of 2002G.R.Kalyani .. Petitioner (Opponent No.6)..Vs..1. Salem Sri Ramavilas Chit Co Pvt. Ltd., Rep by its President / Foreman 25, Arya Vysial Street, ..Respondent (Disputant) Shevapet, Salem.2. T.G.Dhakshinamoorthy 3. M/s. Sri Ram Finance (Firm) 28, (Upstair) Andal Street, Shevapet, Salem – 2.4. A.Karunakaran5. B.Lakshmi6. C.N.Parvathi7. S.Vasudevan8. S.Hamsa .. Respondents(Respondents 2 to 8 are notnecessary party in the CRP. Hencethey are given up)Civil Revision Petition filed against the Order (Award) dated18.02.2002 made in A.O.P.No.120 of 1999 passed by the DeputyRegistrar of Chits, Salem (West).C.R.P (NPD) No.1717 of 2002G.R.Kalyani .. Petitioner (Opponent No.6)..Vs..1. Salem Sri Ramavilas Chit Co Pvt. Ltd., Rep by its President / Foreman 25, Arya Vysial Street, ..Respondent (Disputant) Shevapet, Salem.2. S.Mahalakshmi Ammal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. M/s. Sri Ram Finance (Firm) 28, (Upstair) Andal Street, Shevapet, Salem – 2.4. A.Karunakaran5. B.Lakshmi6. C.N.Parvathi7. S.Vasudevan8. S.Hamsa .. Respondents 2 to 8 (Opponent 1 to 5, 7 & 8)(Respondents 2 to 8 are notnecessary party in the CRP. Hencethey are given up)Civil Revision Petition filed against the Order (Award) dated18.02.2002 made in A.O.P.No.12 of 2000 passed by the DeputyRegistrar of Chits, Salem (West).C.R.P (NPD) No.1718 of 2002G.R.Kalyani .. Petitioner (Opponent No.6)..Vs..1. Salem Sri Ramavilas Chit Co Pvt. Ltd., Rep by its President / Foreman 25, Arya Vysial Street, ..Respondent (Disputant) Shevapet, Salem.2. R.Sathyanarayanan3. M/s. Sri Ram Finance (Firm) 28, (Upstair) Andal Street, Shevapet, Salem – 2.4. A.Karunakaran5. B.Lakshmi6. C.N.Parvathi7. S.Vasudevan8. S.Hamsa .. Respondents 2 to 8 (Opponent 1 to 5, 7 & 8)(Respondents 2 to 8 are notnecessary party in the CRP. Hencethey are given up)Civil Revision Petition filed against the Order (Award) dated18.02.2002 made in A.O.P.No.13 of 2000 passed by the DeputyRegistrar of Chits, Salem (West). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ C.R.P (NPD) No.1719 of 2002G.R.Kalyani .. Petitioner (Opponent No.6)..Vs..1. Salem Sri Ramavilas Chit Co Pvt. Ltd., Rep by its President / Foreman 25, Arya Vysial Street, ..Respondent (Disputant) Shevapet, Salem.2. P.Rajendran3. M/s. Sri Ram Finance (Firm) 28, (Upstair) Andal Street, Shevapet, Salem – 2.4. A.Karunakaran5. B.Lakshmi6. C.N.Parvathi7. S.Vasudevan8. S.Hamsa .. Respondents 2 to 8 (Opponent 1 to 5, 7 & 8)(Respondents 2 to 8 are notnecessary party in the CRP. Hencethey are given up)Civil Revision Petition filed against the Order (Award) dated18.02.2002 made in A.O.P.No.14 of 2000 passed by the DeputyRegistrar 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 ORDERC.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 DeputyRegistrar of Chits, Salem (West), seeking to set aside the order(award), consequently, directing the authority to pass appropriateorders in the said A.O.P on merits, after considering thepetitioner's objection. C.R.P (NPD) No.1106 of 2002 has beenpreferred against the award passed in A.O.P.No.120 of 1999 by thesaid Deputy Registrar on the said date. Similarly, C.R.P (NPD)Nos.1717, 1718 and 1719 of 2002 have been preferred against theorder, dated 18.02.2002 passed in A.O.P.Nos. 12, 13 and 14 of 2000respectively by the Deputy Registrar of Chits, Salem (West). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. In all these A.O.P cases, counter statements were filed bythe petitioner on 20.10.2001, however, it is seen that thepetitioner was set exparte on 26.11.2001. The petitioner hereinsubsequently filed applications to set aside the exparte orderspassed on 24.12.2001, which were returned by the Deputy Registraron 27.12.2001. From the impugned order, it is seen that the awardwas passed on 18.12.2002, without considering the objections raisedby the petitioner herein in the counter statements. Aggrieved bywhich, all these Civil Revision Petitions have been filed.3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in all therevision petitions submitted that the Deputy Registrar of Chits,Salem (West) had failed to note that in the A.O.P proceedings, thepetitioner has filed detailed counter statements, raising severallegal objections. According to him, the petitioner herein wasrepresented by the counsel on 18.02.2002 and interlocutoryapplications were filed in the batch of cases for adjournment ofthe enquiry, in view of the challenge made by the petitioner in allthe cases against the order of the authority returning thepetitions 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 forthe petitioner further contended that the A.O.P proceedingsinitiated by the Foreman was barred by limitation, however, noopportunity was given to the petitioner, which is against the basicprinciples of natural justice. According to the petitioner, thealleged guarantee letter is null and void and unenforcable, butthat was not legally considered by the Deputy Registrar on merits.He has further contended that the claim made against the surety isnot a dispute, within the meaning of Section 64 of the Act andtherefore, there was no power / jurisdiction / authority, toarbitrate on the claim made by the Disputant / Respondent.4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has alsoproduced a copy of the order, dated 08.11.2002 made inC.R.P.Nos.584 and 714 of 2002 by this Court in a similar matter. Inthe said order, relying on the decision, New India Assurance Co.Ltd., vs. R.Srinivasan, reported in 2000 (3) SCC 242, wherein ithas been held that for the purpose of emphasising that any judicialbody or authority, which has a duty to decide a lis between theparties, inherently possesses the power to dismiss the case indefault, in the absence of the complainant and therefore, the courtwill be well within its jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint fornon-prosecution. So also, it would have the inherent power andjurisdiction to restore the complaint on good cause being shown forthe non-appearance of the complainant. This Court has furtherobserved in the similar revision petition that the learned counselappearing for the respondent in the said case also very vehementlysubmitted that the reasoning given by the Deputy Registrar for non- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ suiting the petitioner for the relief of setting aside the exparteorder is factually incorrect in the sense that on 26.11.2001 nofinal order has been passed in the application in A.O.P.No.122 of1999. Hence, the order could not be sustained. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent hasnot disputed that these Civil Revision Petitions are also based onsimilar facts and circumstances to be decided.6. In view of the earlier decision rendered by this Court in asimilar matter, I am of the view to decide the same, as per theearlier order referred to in C.R.P.Nos.584 and 714 of 2002 by thelearned counsel for the petitioner.7. In the result, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed andthe impugned orders passed by the authority are set aside.Connected civil miscellaneous petitions are closed. The DeputyRegistrar of Chits (West) Salem is directed to dispose of theArbitration Petition in A.O.P.Nos.119 of 1999, 120 of 1999, 12 of2000, 13 of 2000 and 14 of 2000 on merits and in accordance withlaw, as expeditiously as possible, since the matters are pendingfor a long time. Considering the facts and circumstances, both theparties are directed to bear their own costs.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrartsvnTo The Deputy Registrar of Chits, Salem (West). C.R.P.(NPD) Nos.1105, 1106, 1717, 1718 and 1719 of 2002SV (CO)GSK 31.10.2008.