Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 23841

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Ravi Nath Tilhari, J
Atmakuru Nirmalamma – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.28392 of 2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mutyala Sobhanadri Naidu
For the Respondents: Dilip Nayak

The appellate authority under the Chit Funds Act, 1982, lacks the jurisdiction to condone a delay in filing an appeal under Section 70, as the Act does not provide for such power, and the Limitation Act, 1963, is not applicable to these proceedings.

Headnote:(A) Chit Funds Act, 1982 - Section 70 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 5 and 29(2) - Appeal against award of Registrar or nominee - Period of limitation for appeal is two months - Whether appellate authority can condone delay in filing appeal - Held, Chit Funds Act does not provide for condonation of delay under Section 70, nor does it make the Limitation Act applicable - The appellate authority is not a 'Court' for the purpose of the Limitation Act - Consequently, the provisions of Section 29(2) and Section 5 of the Limitation Act are not applicable to these proceedings. (Paras 12, 14, 15, 37)

(B) Interpretation of Statutes - Legislation by incorporation - Applicability of Limitation Act to special statutes - Held, unless the scheme of a statute expressly provides for the application of the Limitation Act or contains similar provisions for condonation, it cannot be read into the Act, especially where the statute indicates a different scheme for different proceedings. (Paras 21, 28, 38)

Facts of the case:
An appeal was filed against an award passed under the regional chit funds legislation. The appeal was presented beyond the statutory period of two months prescribed by the Act. The petitioner sought condonation of delay, which the appellate authority rejected on the ground that it lacked the power to condone the delay as the appeal was barred by limitation.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the appellate authority is neither a court nor specifically vested with the power to condone delay beyond the statutory period. The legislative intent is clear from the absence of such a provision in the relevant section, unlike other sections of the same Act that deal with original disputes. There is no automatic applicability of the Limitation Act to these appellate proceedings.

Issues: Whether an appeal filed under the relevant section of the statute after the expiry of the prescribed period of two months is maintainable, and whether the appellate authority has the inherent power to condone the delay upon showing sufficient cause.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that in the absence of a specific enabling provision in the statute and given that the appellate authority is not a Court, the provisions of the Limitation Act cannot be imported to condone a delay. The statutory scheme implies an exclusion of such power for appeals.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. nature of the dispute and the filing of the appeal under section 70. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. parties' contentions regarding the application of the limitation act to chit fund act appeals. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. interpretation of section 70 and rule 59 regarding statutory limitation periods. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
4. analysis of precedent concerning the exclusion of the limitation act through statutory schemes. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
5. determination that appellate bodies under the act are not 'courts' for limitation act purposes. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
6. final ruling affirming the dismissal of the time-barred appeal. (Para 39 , 40 , 41)

JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri Mutyala Sobhanadri Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dilip Nayak.K, AGP for Revenue for the respondents 1 to 3.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Order vide Letter No.REV01-REGSOACTS (CHIT)/49/2024-REGN.II, Dated 28.10.2024, informing the petitioner about the dismissal of her Appeal filed under Section 70 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 as barred by limitation under the provisions of the said Act.

3. M/s.Margadarsi Chit Fund Private Limited, the 4th respondent, filed an arbitration case against 6 persons, including the petitioner, under Section 64 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982, before the Deputy Registrar of Chits, Tenali for recovery of an amount of Rs.17,67,275/- along with interest and costs, which was numbered as D.I.S.(Dispute) No.32/2016. The 4th respondent-M/s. Margadarsi Chit Fund Company was carrying on the chit fund business. One A. Prathyusha is the subscriber of the 4th respondent Chit Fund Company having subscribed to Ticket No.40 in chit group, LT005D TL dated 27.03.2014. The chit amount was valued at Rs.25,00,000/-. The total months were 50 and the monthly installment was Rs.50,000/-. According to the 4th respondent Chit Fund Company, A. Prathyusha participated in the chit auction on 29.03.2014 and became successful bidder having agreed to forego an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and the bid amount of Rs.15,00,000/- was paid to her on 14.06.2014. The petitioner stood as one of the guarantors to A. Prathyusha vide agreement dated 14.06.2014. According to the 4th respondent, A. Prathyusha, subscriber, paid 18 installments and thereafter committed default from 16.09.2015 onwards, consequently, the Dispute No.32 of 2016 was filed. The petitioner did not appear in spite of the notice and was set ex parte. The 3rd respondent-the Deputy Registrar of Chits, Tenali, thereafter passed an award dated 31.10.2017 under Section 69 of the Chit Funds Act, deciding that the 4th respondent Chit Fund Company was entitled to recover an amount of Rs.17,67,275/- with interest @18% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.15,63,040/- from the date of filing the dispute till the date of realization.

4. The petitioner’s case is that the notice was not received and she was unaware of the Dispute proceedings. The 4th respondent filed execution petition before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore in E.P.No.245 of 2019, and she came to know about the Order / Award in the year 2024 on receipt of summons in execution petition. She then filed Arbitration Original Petition (AOP) before the District Judge, Nellore against the order of the Deputy Registrar, which was returned as not maintainable. The petitioner thereafter filed appeal before the 1st respondent-State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue (Registration & Stamps), under Section 70 of the Chit Funds Act along with interlocutory application seeking to condone the delay in filing the appeal and also to stay the operation of the order/award of the 3rd respondent-Deputy Registrar. The appeal has been dismissed as not maintainable on the ground of limitation that the appeal was barred by limitation, having been filed after two months from

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 23841

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHRavi Nath Tilhari, JAtmakuru Nirmalamma – AppellantVersusState of Andhra Pradesh – RespondentWRIT PETITION No.28392 of 2024

The appellate authority under the Chit Funds Act, 1982, lacks the jurisdiction to condone a delay in filing an appeal under Section 70, as the Act does not provide for such power, and the Limitation Act, 1963, is not applicable to these proceedings.

Cases Referred (4)

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Ravi Nath Tilhari, J
Atmakuru Nirmalamma – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.28392 of 2024