Madras High Court
Margadarsi Chits Private Limited vs R.S.Raghavan on 24 November, 2023
Author: T.V.Thamilselvi
Bench: T.V.Thamilselvi
CRP. No. 2381 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
CRP No. 2381 of 2023
Margadarsi Chits Private Limited
Represented by its Branch Manager & Foremen
3rd Floor, Keshyab Enclave
13-a, Velachery Main Road,
Velachery, Chennai – 600 042.
...Petitioner
Vs.
1.R.S.Raghavan
2.M.Sampath Kumar
3.K.Venkatesh
4.S.Prabakar
5.R.Thirumalainambi
6.S.Govind
7.N.Venkateswaran
....Respondents
PRAYER : This petition filed under Section 115 of CPC, to set aside the
fair and decreetal order dated 20.04.2023 in EP No. 4170 of 2021 in A.R.C
No. 1037 of 2008 on the file of the XXVII Assistant City Civil Court,
Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Shivakumaran
R1 left
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP. No. 2381 of 2023
For R1 & R4 : Vacated
For R5 : Not Appeared
For R6 and R7 : unclaimed
For R3 : D.Lakshmipathy
ORDER
This petition has been filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order
dated 20.04.2023 in EP No. 4170 of 2021 in A.R.C No. 1037 of 2008 on the
file of the XXVII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. The petitioner herein filed EP No. 4170 of 2021 in ARC No. 1037
of 2008, on the file of the XXVII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. The
said petition was dismissed by the Court Below. Challenging the same the
petitioner filed this petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel
for the petitioners.
4. On perusal of the records, it reveals that arbitration award was
passed in ARC No. 1037 of 2008 in the year 2009. Thereafter, the decree
holder filed E.P No.4170 of 2021 in ARC No. 1037 of 2008 to execute the
same, but the executing court dismissed the execution petition stating that in
Form 2 of the award address of the Court not been properly mentioned.
Further, to substantiate his claim the petitioner relied the ratio laid down in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd Vs. Sivakam Sundari reported in 2011 CTC
11(6):
It must be noted that any award passed by the Registrar of Chits under Section
69 of the Tamil Nadu Chit Funds Act, 1982, is also made executable by a civil Court, as
if it is a decree of Court, by virtue of Section 71 of the Act. No demand is made for the
transmission of those awards. Therefore, it is not proper to import the provisions of
Order XXI, Rules 5 and 6 and demand an order for transmission. This principle shall
apply not only to the case on hand where the X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court,
Chennai, has made such a demand, but would also apply to every other Court, including
the Original Side of this Court. Neither the Court to which an execution petition is
presented can demand the same to be transmitted from some other Court, nor an award
holder entitled to approach any other Court seeking transmission, except in cases where
only part satisfaction is recorded in execution by one Court and the remaining portion is
required to be executed as against the property situate within the jurisdiction of any
other Court.
5. This court is of the view that it is curable defect but the Court
below erroneously dismissed the execution petition as such is liable to be
set aside. Further, Judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner
is applicable to the fact of the present case. Hence, the order passed by the
Trial Court in EP No. 4170 of 2021 is set aside and also the Trial court is
directed to take the execution petition on file and dispose the same on
merits. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. No cost.
24.11.2023
pbl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.
Pbl
To
1. The XXVII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
24.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
