Madras High Court
N.Suresh Kumar vs Margadarsi Chits Private Limited on 23 June, 2025
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
CRP No. 862 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23-06-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
CRP No. 862 of 2025
1. N.Suresh Kumar
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Margadarsi Chits Private Limited,
Rep. by its Foreman,
Mr.R. Neelakantudu,
Kumaran Building,
No.AA-152, 3rd Avenue,
Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040.
2.Thirumala Traders
Rep. by its Proprietor,
N. Sankar, S/o. P. Natarajan,
24/306, Madurai Veeran Street,
Padi, Chennai - 050.
3.P. Ramachandran
S/o. Pichaimuthu, Proprietor,
R.K. Builders, 207, 2nd Street,
Imayam Colony,
Anna Nagar West Extension,
Chennai – 600 040.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 01:46:02 pm )
CRP No. 862 of 2025
4.N. Aruna
5.VE. Palaniappan
6.PL. Valikanu
7.J. Chandrasekaran
Respondent(s)
PRAYER
The writ petition has been filed under Section l115 of CPC to set aside the fair
order dated 07.01.2025 made in EP No.3491 of 2025 in ARC No.252 of 2019
on the file of the Ld. XXVI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai by allowing this
CRP.
For Petitioner(s): N. Manoharan
For Respondent(s): Mr D Shivakumaran
For R1
R2 - Left
R3 And R4 No Such Person
R5 And R6 Not Available
R7- Vacated
R2 To R7 Court Notice Retd.
Unserved
2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 01:46:02 pm )
CRP No. 862 of 2025
ORDER
Challenging the order in execution of the Assistant City Civil Court,
Chennai, ordering attachment of the household articles of the revision petitioner,
the present revision has been filed.
2. The first respondent/decree holder has filed an execution petition in
E.P.No.3491 of 2022, on the file of the XXVI Assistant City Civil
Court,Chennai, to attach the movable properties of Judgment Debtors 3 and 5
for recovery of the award passed in A.R.C.NO.252 of 2019 dated 07.04.2021.
On 15.02.2023, the E.P. was dismissed as against the Judgment Debtor 3 as the
decree holder has not taken steps to amend his address. Thereafter, the
Executing Court vide order dated 07.01.2025 allowed the E.P and ordered to
attach the movable properties of the Judgment Debtor 5 and sell through public
auction. Against which, the Judgment Debtor 5 has filed the present revision
petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 01:46:02 pm )
3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
award, which was put in execution, cannot be enforced for the simple reason
that it has not contained any reasons.
4. According to the learned counsel, as per section 67 of the Chit Funds
Act, read with Rule 49, the procedure has not been followed. Similarly, Rule 49
of the Chit Funds Act mandates that a written decision should be made on the
basis of the evidence produced by the parties, whereas, award has been passed
without recording any reasons.
5. The learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that Rule 49
clearly says that there should not be more than two adjournments.
6. I have considered the matter in the light of the submissions made by
the learned counsel on both sides and perused the entire materials available on
records carefully.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 01:46:02 pm )
7. The challenge in the present revision has been made only against the
attachment. However, it is seen that the Execution Petition has been filed on the
basis of the award passed by the Chit Fund Registrar for the alleged default
committed by the Subscriber.
8. It is a settled legal principle that any award or order that is enforceable
must be supported by reasons and some evidence.
9. On perusal of the entire award passed in ARC No.252 of 2019 dated
07.04.2021, it is seen that it does not contain any reasoning, nor any discussion
about on how such a conclusion arrived at.
10. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the award itself is
not passed in accordance with law and hence, the same cannot be sustained.
Section 67 of the Chit Funds Act requires some of the evidence and documents,
etc. Further, Rule 49 of the Chit Fund clearly stipulates that an award must be
passed based on the evidence produced.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 01:46:02 pm )
11. Since the impugned award fails to satisfy these requirements, this
Court, in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
set aside the said award. Consequently, the order passed in the Execution Court
also stands set aside. The learned Chit Fund Registrar is directed to conduct a
fresh enquiry in accordance with law by giving due opportunity of hearing to
the parties and proceed further and decide the matter afresh.
12. It is made clear that the revision petitioner shall furnish the details and
the correct addresses of all the other parties. Therefore, the proceedings can be
proceeded against all of them. Such direction has been issued in view of the
submission made before this Court that only the petitioner alone has been
proceeded by the Chit Funds Registrar and the Executing Court, while others
have not been proceeded. The Chit Fund Registrar shall decide the dispute
within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 01:46:02 pm )
13. With the above observations and directions, this Civil Revision
Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions
are allowed.
23-06-2025
mrp
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
To
1. XXVI Assistant City Civuk Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 01:46:02 pm )
N.SATHISH KUMAR J.
mrp
23-06-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/06/2025 01:46:02 pm )
