Advocates:
['M/S P PRAKASH PAUL', 'M/S M DEVENDRAN', '', 'R VIJAYAKUMAR', 'R DHANDAPANI', 'AGP W', 'R- THE ARBITRATOR Chennaui North & South', 'Madras District Registrar of Chit Funds Cases', 'No', 'Rajaji Salai First Line Beach Chennai']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 09.11.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

W.P.NO.18898 OF 2014

Mr.E.Chandrasekar

... Petitioner

.Vs.

1. Sriram Chits Tamilnadu (P) Ltd.,

Reptd by its Foreman

No.1, Anna Pillai Street,

1^st Floor, Kothawal Bazzar,

Chennai – 600 001.

2. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,

Commercial Taxes & Registration (G) Department,

Fort St.George,

Chennai – 600 009.

3. The Arbitrator,

Chennai North & South,

Madras District Registrar of Chit Funds Cases,

No.26, Rajaji Salai (First line Beach),

Chennai – 600 001.

... Respondents

PRAYER:-

Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for

the records of the second respondent dated 17.6.2013 made in

G.O.(D) No.309 and quash the same and consequentially direct the

2^nd respondent to entertain an Appeal against the Exparte Order

dated 21.4.2009 made in ARC No.1046 of 2008 on the file of the

third respondent.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Prakash Paul

For Respondents : Mr.C.Jayaprakash

Government Advocate

[For R1 and R2]

Mr.M.Devendran [For R3]

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

O R D E R

The order passed by the second respondent in G.O.(D).No.309

dated 17.06.2013 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner subscribe in the first respondent/Sriram

Chits Tamilnadu (P) Limited. The chit amount was a sum of

Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only). The petitioner admits

that due to certain developments, he has not paid the monthly

installments. The first respondent initiated arbitration

proceedings in A.R.C.No.1046/2008. Exparte award has been passed

against the writ petitioner.

3. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that no proper

notice was sent by the third respondent in A.R.C Proceedings.

The writ petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 70 of the

Chit Funds Act, 1982. The Government considered the appeal on

merits and made a finding that the Arbitrator passed an order in

A.R.C.No.1046/2008 on 21.04.2009 and however, the appeal itself

has been filed only on 23.04.2013 with a delay of 3 years 10

months and 3 days. Under the provisions of the Act, 2 months

time limit is prescribed. However, the Appellate authority,

Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration

Department, decided to give an opportunity to the petitioner and

it was decided to conduct an inquiry on 05.06.2013 at 04.30 p.m.

regarding the petition filed for condonation of delay in filing

the appeal and the same was communicated to the petitioner on

15.05.2013. But, the notice was returned. The postal authority

has stated that the petitioner is “always not found”. On the day

of enquiry, the petitioner or his counsel did not appear before

the Appellate authority. Thus, the Appellate authority perused

the original records of the chit Arbitrator and found that the

notice was sent to the petitioners. However, the petitioner had

not appeared before the Arbitrator. The notice was returned by

the postal authorities, stating that he has left. Thereafter,

paper publication was made in “Maalai Chudar” on 15.11.2008. The

petitioner was served notice properly by the Chit Arbitrator and

was well aware of the proceedings. The petitioner has not

furnished adequate reason to condone the huge delay of 3 years

10 months and 3 days in filing the appeal. Thus, the appellate

authority rejected the appeal on the ground of delay.

4. The counter filed by the second respondent/Secretary to

Government of Tamil Nadu, Commercial Taxes and Registration (G)

Department, reveals that the exparte award was passed, after

taking sincere effort by the third respondent to serve the

summon. The third respondent has given six hearing dates i.e.,

13.11.2008, 11.12.2008, 21.01.2009, 11.02.2009, 17.03.2009 and

21.04.2009 to the petitioner to contest the c