IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
K. LAKSHMAN, J.
Gudala Sagar - Appellant
Versus
Kapil Chits Kakatiya Private Limited - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No.980 Of 2025
Decided On : 21-03-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. execution of award in chit funds (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner's challenge to execution proceedings (Para 4) |
| 3. legal provisions for execution of decrees (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. liability of sureties and guarantors (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. attachment of property in execution (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. direction for disposal of pending execution petition (Para 16 , 17) |
ORDER :
K. LAKSHMAN, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the record.
2. Perusal of the record would reveal that respondent No.1 has filed an application under Section 64 of the CHIT FUNDS ACT , 1982 (for short ‘the Act, 1982’) vide ARB. No. 1029 of 2021 before the Chit Arbitrator/Deputy Registrar of Chits, Karimnagar, claiming an amount of Rs.4,64,528/- along with interest from the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 6. Respondent No.2 is the subscriber of the Chit with respondent No.1. Petitioner and respondent Nos.3 to 6 stood as guarantors to the said Chit Funds. Learned Chit Arbitrator has passed an award, dated 24.08.2023 holding that the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 6 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount i.e., Rs.4,64,528/- with interest @ 18% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.3,72,980/- from the date of filing of dispute to till the date of realization of the said amount.
3. Respondent No.1 had filed an execution petition in the terms of Order 21 Rule 48 of CPC vide E.P.No.114 of 2024 in ARB. No. 1029 of 2021 against the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 6 for recovery of the said amount. The said execution petition is pending.
4. The Petitioner filed the present petition challenging the said Execution Proceedings itself contending that respondent No.1 cannot recover the entire award amount each from the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 6 and the same is in violation of the procedure laid down under the CONTRACT ACT , 1972 and the Act, 1982.
5. It is relevant to extract Order - XXI, Rules - 11 (2) and 48 of the CPC and the same is as under:
“XXI Rule 11 (2) of CPC-Written application- Save as otherwise provided by sub-rule(1), every application for the execution of a decree shall be in writing, signed and verified by the applicant or by some other person proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case, and shall contain in a tabular form the following particulars, namely-
(a) the number of the suit;
(b) the names of the parties;
(c) the date of the decree;
(d) whether any appeal has been preferred from the decree;
(e) whether any, and (if any) what, payment or other adjustment of the matter in controversy has been made between the parties subsequently to the decree;
(f) whether any, and (if any) what, previous applications have been made for the execution of the decree, the dates of such applications and their results;
(g) the amount with interest (if any) due upon the decree, or other relief granted thereby, together with particulars of any cross-decree, whether passed before or after the date of the decree sought to be executed;
(h) the amount of the costs (if any) awarded;
(i) the name of the person against whom execution of the decree is sought; and
(j) the mode in which the assistance of the Court is required whether-
(i) by the delivery of any property specifically decreed;
(ii) by the attachment, or by the attachment and sale, or by the sale without attachment, of any property;
(iii) by the arrest and detention in prison of any person;
(iv) by the appointment of a receiver;
(v) otherwise, as the nature of the relief granted may require.”
“Order XXI Rule 48 of CPC-Attachment of salary or allowances of servant of the Government or railway company or local authority.- (1) Where the property to be attached is the salary or allowances of a servant of the Government or of a servant of a railway company or local authority or of a servant of a corporation engaged in any trade or industry which is established by a Central, Provincial or State Act, or a Government company as defined in sect
The liability of co-sureties is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor, as established by the Indian Contract Act.
The court upheld that salary attachment orders must comply with statutory provisions and cannot exceed the awarded amount from judgment debtors, emphasizing the co-extensive liability of sureties and....
The liability of co-sureties is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor, allowing the decree holder to recover the awarded amount from any or all judgment debtors.
The liability of co-sureties is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor unless otherwise provided by contract, allowing the decree holder to recover from any or all judgment debtors.
The liability of co-sureties is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor unless otherwise stated, and execution procedures must adhere to statutory requirements and prior legal precedents.
Decree-holders must adhere to the awarded amount in recovery proceedings against co-sureties under the Chit Fund and Contract Acts, prohibiting excess recovery.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.