Madras High Court
R.Karnan vs M/S.Shriram Chits Tamilnadu (Private) ... on 6 October, 2025
C.R.P.No.1064 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.6113 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
C.R.P.No.1064 of 2025
and
C.M.P.No.6113 of 2025
1. R.Karnan
2. G.Srinivasan ... Petitioners
Versus
M/s.Shriram Chits Tamilnadu (Private) Ltd.,
Rep. by its Senior Law Officer
Adyar Branch, Chennai - 600 020 ... Respondent
Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India to set aside the order dated 04.02.2025 passed by the X Assistant Judge
City Civil Court, Chennai in E.A.S.R.No.77527 of 2024 in E.P.No.4776 of
2023 in A.R.C.No.1297 of 2010.
(Amended and System updated vide Court order dated 28.03.2025
made in C.M.P.No.794 of 2025 in C.R.P.No.1064 of 2025)
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Venkateswaran
For Respondent : Mr.Adharsh Subramanian
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 11:31:24 am )
C.R.P.No.1064 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.6113 of 2025
ORDER
Unsuccessful Judgment Debtors III and IV have preferred the present
civil revision petition. Shriram Chits Tamilnadu (Private) Ltd., represented
by its Senior Law Officer has initiated an arbitral proceedings in Arc.No.1297
of 2010 and the arbitrator has passed an award dated 30.03.2011 as against
the present civil revision petitioners and also against the Principal debtors,
namely A.Arunkumar and A.Kalaivani. Thereafter, the decree holder viz.,
Shriram Chits Tamilnadu (Private) Ltd., has filed an Execution Petition in
E.P.No.4776 of 2023 in ARC.No.1297 of 2010 seeking attachment of salary
of the revision petitioners. Upon receiving the notice in the aforesaid
execution proceedings, the revision petitioners/ Judgment Debtors III and IV
filed an application in E.A.S.R.No.77527 of 2024 in E.P.No.4776 of 2023 in
A.R.C.No.1297 of 2010.
2. Upon hearing either side, the Court below vide order dated
04.02.2025, rejected the application as not maintainable on the ground that
the award was passed on 30.03.2011 and the execution petition came to be
filed on 30.03.2023 which is within the period of limitation and the revision
petitioners have no locus standi to file the application seeking dismissal of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 11:31:24 am )
C.R.P.No.1064 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.6113 of 2025
execution petition since the first judgment debtor has not raised such
contention before the arbitrator and also held that sureties are equally liable to
repay the decree amount and rejected the application in limine. Aggrieved
over the same, the present civil revision petition has been instituted.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would
submit that the Court below ought not to have entertained the Execution
Petition filed by the decree holder after a lapse of 12 years, which is
completely barred by limitation. Further, the Court below has passed an
erroneous order rejecting the application filed under Section 47 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 and the award passed by the Arbitrator is binding on
the parties. The award amount to be paid by the revision petitioners should
have been clearly stated in the arbitral award, but in the case on hand, the
Arbitrator has stated that for the period from December 2010 to March 2010 a
sum of Rs.79,000/- paid by Principal debtor should be deducted in the
arbitral award and also not deducted in the Execution Petition. Learned
counsel would further submit that the pre-arbitration notice has not been
properly served on the revision petitioners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 11:31:24 am )
C.R.P.No.1064 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.6113 of 2025
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/decree
holder submitted that during the arbitral proceedings, notice have been sent to
all the respondents but they have evaded to receive the notice. Thereafter,
paper publication has also been effected and upon considering the merits of
the case alone, the Arbitrator passed the award and the revision petitioners
have not chosen to challenge the arbitral award. Learned counsel would
further submit that the decree holder has filed the execution petition within
the period of limitation. After receiving the notice in the Execution Petition,
the revision petitioners cannot file an application for dismissal of entire
execution petition and the same is not in consonance with law. The revision
petitioners ought to have challenged the arbitral award itself and having failed
to challenge the arbitral award and filing of an application to dismiss the
entire execution petition is unwarranted and hence, there is no reason for this
Court to interfere with the order of the Court below. It is his further
submission that the decree holder already filed the Execution Petition in
E.P.No.2898 of 2013 in A.R.C.No.1297 of 2010 against the revision
petitioners herein for attachment of salary and the revision petitioners have
chosen to participate in the proceedings. However, due to the non-appearance
of the decree holder, the aforesaid Execution Petition came to be dismissed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 11:31:24 am )
C.R.P.No.1064 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.6113 of 2025
for default on 09.11.2022. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent
would submit that the principal debtor, namely A.Arunkumar has filed
W.P.No.26506 of 2012 challenging the arbitral award passed in
A.R.C.No.1297 of 2010 and in the said writ petition, principal debtor has
given an undertaking to pay the entire amount within the period of three
months and this Court recording the said undertaking disposed of the writ
petition on 25.10.2021.
5. A perusal of the EP proceedings, it is seen that the amount paid by
the Principal debtor has been stated in Column No.6. Though the revision
petitioners have stated that the amount by the principal debtor has not been
properly given credit to, the revision petitioners have not filed any documents
to prove the same. Though the revision petitioners have contended that they
have not received the notice, a careful perusal of the arbitral proceedings it is
seen that notice sent to the third respondent/ first petitioner herein has been
returned unserved and paper publication has also been effected in Tamil Daily
“Malaisudar” on 11.01.2011. It has also been stated that notice has been
served on the second petitioner herein, but he has not turned up to attend the
proceedings.
6. In view of the above, the revision petitioners cannot contend that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 11:31:24 am )
C.R.P.No.1064 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.6113 of 2025
due notice has not been served on them. It is also seen from the records that
the arbitral award came to be passed on 30.03.2011 and the Execution
Petition came to be filed in the year 2023 within the period of 12 years. It is
for the revision petitioners to pursue the proceedings in the Execution Petition
in the manner known to law and they cannot seek for dismissal of entire
execution proceedings which is unknown to law.
7. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the
order of the Court below. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is
dismissed. The learned X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai shall
dispose of the Execution Petition as expeditiously as possible. Consequently,
the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. There shall be no order
as to costs.
06.10.2025
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order : Yes/No
Neutral Case Citation : Yes/No
gpa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 11:31:24 am )
C.R.P.No.1064 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.6113 of 2025
To
X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court
Chennai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 11:31:24 am )
C.R.P.No.1064 of 2025 and C.M.P.No.6113 of 2025
M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.
gpa
and
06.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 11:31:24 am )
