VADAKARA v. REVN
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 21 Aug 2007
- Bench
- PIUS C KURIAKOSE
Outcome
Disposed of
The Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of as above
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. I set aside the impugned orders and direct the execution court to permit the petitioners to raise the above quoted ground as additional objection to the execution petition. Once that ground is raised pursuant to this order, the execution court will hear both sides…
Judgment
BY ADV. SRI.MOHANAN V.T.K. RESPONDENT: PETITIONER – DECREE-HOLDER ------------- SREE GOKULAM CHIT AND FINANCE COMPANY (P) LTD.NO.66 (OLD NO.356) AROOT ROAD, KODAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI-24, THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, P.JAYAKUMAR, 31 YEARS, S/O.KUTTIKRISHNA KURUP, PEECHAMBARAMBATH HOUSE, CHORODE POST, VATAKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.BABU SMT.N.SUDHA THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/08/2007, ALONG WITH CRP NO.1093 OF 2005, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: I.A.166/05 IN C.R.P.NO.66/2005 DISMISSED
21.8.2007 SD/-PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. .......................................................... C.R.P.Nos.66 & 1093 OF 2005 ........................................................... DATED THIS THE 21st AUGUST, 2007
O R D E R Identical orders are impugned in these Civil Revision Petitions. When the awards of the Chitty Registrar passed in favour of the respondent-Company in terms of Section 64 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 were put in execution, it was contended by the petitioners- judgment-debtors that being awards passed by the Arbitration Court, it is the District Court alone which has got jurisdiction in terms of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and not the Sub Court. The above contention, according to me, was rightly repelled by the execution court.
Amendment application has been filed in C.R.P.No.1093 of 2005 for incorporating the following additional ground:- “Since the Chitties Act is not enforced in Kerala, an award passed by Arbitration Court, Chennai (the Registrar under the Chit Funds Act, 1982) cannot be enforced in Kerala as a decree of Civil Court”. This ground is founded on a decision of this Court in Krishnamoorthy v. Khaleel Rahman (1996 (2) KLT 788) wherein this Court, after noticing that the Chit Funds Act, 1982 has not been made applicable in the State of Kerala by a notification issued in that regard by the Central C.R.P.N0s.66 & 1093/05 -2- Government, found that the civil courts cannot treat the orders passed by the Registrar under the Chit Funds Act, 1982 as decrees of civil court and therefore civil courts in Kerala cannot execute such orders. As submitted by Smt. Sudha, counsel for the respondent, this was not a ground taken before the execution court. However, being a ground which relates to the fundamental jurisdiction of the execution court to entertain the execution petition, I am inclined to permit the petitioners to raise this ground. It is not disputed before me that the Chit Funds Act, 1982 is yet to be extended to the State of Kerala.
Operative part
I set aside the impugned orders and direct the execution court to permit the petitioners to raise the above quoted ground as additional objection to the execution petition. Once that ground is raised pursuant to this order, the execution court will hear both sides on that ground and take a fresh decision regarding executability of the award before that court. Fresh decision as directed above will be taken at the earliest and at any rate within two months of receiving copy of this order. The Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of as above. No costs. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) C.R.P.N0s.66 & 1093/05 -3- C.R.P.N0s.66 & 1093/05 -4-
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of as above
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Chit Funds Act, 1982 — s. 64; Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 8.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 21 Aug 2007. The bench was PIUS C KURIAKOSE.
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.