The court emphasized the need to allow parties to rectify procedural defects in arbitration requests to ensure access to statutory remedies.

J U D G M E N T

When the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited initiated coercive proceedings for recovery of the amounts due from the petitioner towards a chit transaction, the petitioner approached this Court filing W.P.(C) No.7306 of 2025. This Court, after hearing the parties, permitted the petitioner to move the Arbitrator under Section 64 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 . To enable the petitioner to avail the remedy under , this Court directed that all coercive proceedings against the petitioner shall stand deferred for a period of one month.

2. The petitioner then approached the Joint Registrar of Chits filing Ext.P14 request for arbitration. Ext.P14 request for arbitration stands rejected as per Ext.P15 order dated 03.04.2025 of the Joint Registrar of Chits. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P15 order.

The petitioner states that the application for arbitration has been rejected for the sole reason that there is delay in filing the arbitration request. The petitioner would contend that it is pursuant to the direction of this Court as contained in Ext.P13 judgment that the petitioner has approached the Arbitrator. If the arbitration application is defective due to want of delay condonation petition, the Arbitrator ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner to make an application for condonation of delay.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 2 and 4.

5. Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 4 submits that Ext.P15 is not liable to be interfered with. While making the application for arbitration, the petitioner ought to have submitted a request for delay condonation. The petitioner did not support his application with a delay condonation petition. The transactions are more than a decade old. The intention of the petitioner is only to delay and defeat the process of recovery. The writ petition, is therefore, liable to be dismissed.

6. From the pleadings, I find that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court filing W.P.(C) No.7306 of 2025. This Court, after appreciating the facts of the case, was of the opinion that the petitioner shall be granted an opportunity to resolve the issue through arbitration proceedings under Section 64 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 . The writ petition was disposed of accordingly with a further direction that all coercive proceedings against the petitioner shall stand deferred for a period of one month. The said judgment was made in order to facilitate resolution of a dispute through arbitration.

7. In such circumstances, if the application for arbitration submitted by the petitioner was defective in any manner, the Joint Registrar of Chits ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner to cure the defects. The purpose of Section 64 is resolution of dispute between foremen and the subscribers. In fact, that is the only statutory remedy available to the petitioner. In the circumstances, the rejection of the request on technical grounds will cause injustice to the petitioner.

8. In the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of setting aside Ext.P15 order and permitting the petitioner to file a delay condonation petition. If the petitioner submits a delay condonation petition in support of Ext.P14 application within a period of two weeks, the Joint Registrar of Chits shall consider the delay condonation application and take a decision thereon and proceed with arbitration subject to such decision.

The writ petition is disposed of as above in order to enable the petitioner to approach the Deputy Registrar of Chits. All coercive proceedings again