Madras High Court
M/S Margadarsi Chits Private Limited vs S.Usha on 5 January, 2024
Author: V.Sivagnanam
Bench: V.Sivagnanam
CRP No.5049 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.01.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
CRP No.5049 of 2023
M/s Margadarsi Chits Private Limited,
rep. by its Neelankandu, Foreman,
Kumarn Building, No.AA-152, 2nd Floor,
3rd Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. S.Usha
2. R.Srinivasan
3. K.Saraswathi
4. G.Kulasekaran
5. G.Anandha Kumar ...Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated
24.06.2022 in E.P.No.2405/2019 on the file of the IX Assistant City Civil
Court, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Shivakumaran
1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No.5049 of 2023
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order
dated 24.06.2022 passed in E.P.No.2405/2019 by the learned IX Assistant
Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. M/s Margadarsi Chits (P) Ltd, who is the petitioner herein, had
filed the above execution petition against the respondents herein to issue a
warrant to attach and sale of movable properties belonging to the Garnishee
of the fourth Judgment Debtor, to realise the E.P.claim of Rs.1,01,979/-, on
the basis of the Arbitral Award passed in ARC No.580/2008, dated
18.07.2008. The above petition was dismissed by the Execution Court and
assailing the above order, the present Civil Revision petition has been filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and I have perused the
materials on record.
2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. A perusal of the records reveals that, the first respondent had
obtained a chit loan from the petitioner (chit fund) herein, subsequently, the
petitioner had obtained an Arbitral Award, dated 18.07.2008, against the
respondents 1 to 4 herein, for payment of Rs.1,53,839/- together with
interest at 24% p.a and for costs. Since the fourth respondent herein was
stood as a guarantor for the chit loan obtained by the first respondent herein,
the petitioner has filed the Execution Petition No.2405/2019 against the
garnishee of the fourth respondent viz., Branch Manager, Indian Bank,
Vijaya Complex, No.1961, Asiad Colony, Anna Nagar West, Chennai 600
101. In the Execution petition, at Coloumn No.12. the petitioner has sought
assistance of the court as follows.
" To attach and sale the movables of Garnishee of JD4 under
Order 21 Rule 43 and 64 of CPC to set for the attached amount,
as per the pro-order served on the Garnishee JD4 and AMA on
10.03.10 in E.P.No.1574/2009 and send for Order served on
Garnishee of JD-4 and AMA on 25.10.16 in E.P.No.1098 of
2015".
5. In the above execution petition, it is the contention of the petitioner
that, after obtaining the Arbitral Award, they filed E.P.No.1574/2009 and
3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
E.P.No.1098/2017 for attachment of salary of the fourth respondent and the
above attachment was made absolute on 10.03.2010 and 25.10.2016 and
despite the order, the Garnishee has failed to pay amount.
6. To reply the above petition, the Garnishee of the fourth respondent,
namely the Indian Bank, has filed the counter affidavit stating that the
fourth respondent was an employee of Indian Bank, who voluntarily retired
from service on 01.08.2018. It is further stated that, at the time of seeking
VRS, the fourth respondent has given a requisition letter and the extract
was,
"the garnishee order was issued on Indian Bank, Anna Nagar Branch for
attachment of my salary and allowance towards recovery of Rs.1,83,105/- in
monthly installments being the loan amount sanctioned to Mrs.Usha, for
whom I stood as guarantor. As the borrower defaulted the payment, the
financier initiated recovery through court. The same was recovered from
my SB account from January 2010 to December 2011 and remitted to the
Registrar, City Civil Court, by way of DD. There was no further recovery
from my SB account since January 2012, as the balance amount was
remitted by the defendants and the loan was closed by them".
4 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
In the counter affidavit, the details of payments remitted to the Court from
29.04.2010 to 24.12.2011, regarding Judgment Debtor-4, was also given by
the Bank in the tabular column.
7. After hearing both side and upon perusing the documents, the
learned Judge has observed that, the Garnishee had attached the salary of JD
from 29.04.2010 to 24.12.2011 and remitted the amount and when the
respondents contended in their counter that the respondents have paid the
entire loan amount and the loan was closed, it is the duty of the decree
holder to prove that, some more due is in existence, but no statement of
account is produced. As such, the learned Judge has dismissed the petition.
8. In such circumstances, this court is of the view that the prayer
sought for by the petitioner before the execution court for attachment and
sale of the movables (Table, fans, chairs, computer sets, A/c Machine to the
value of Rs.1,01,979/-) of Garnishee of JD-4, is not permissible in the eye
5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of law. Therefore, the learned Judge, has rightly dismissed the execution
petition, finding that there is no material from the petitioner to prove, some
more due is in existence and I find no infirmity in the order passed by the
learned Judge.
9. In fine, this civil revision petition is dismissed and the impugned
order passed by the Execution Court is upheld. No costs.
05.01.2024
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
mst
To
The IX Assistant Judge,
City Civil Court, Chennai - 104.
6 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.,
mst
05.01.2024
7 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
