IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16.08.2010 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN W.P.No.9454 of 2010 & M.P.No.1 of 2010 G.Karunakaran ... Petitioner Versus 1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Deputy Registrar of Chits, (Arbitrator for Central Madras Chit Fund Cases) Central Chennai, Chennai – 600 001. 3. Arjun Amaravathy Chits Private Limited, Rep. by its Personnel Manager, Mr.P.Venu, No.30, Kutchery Road, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order passed by the first respondent in Letter No.18135/G/2009-1 dated 29.03.2010 and quash the same and direct the first respondent to remit the A.R.C.No.551 of 2006 to the second respondent for fresh disposal. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Kamaraj For Respondents1-2 : Mrs.Lita Srinivasan Government Advocate For Respondent – 3 : No Appearance O R D E R The petitioner joined the Chit conducted by the third respondent. When, he joined the Chit, he was residing in a rented house temporarily at No.AJ, 9th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 040. The said Chit was for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- payable monthly an amount of Rs.12,500/-. He was declared as a successful bidder in the auction held on 10.05.2003. He paid the monthly chit amount. 2. According to the petitioner, the third respondent filed an Arbitration case in A.R.C.No.551/2006 against the petitioner before the second respondent. The petitioner was not served with any notice in the above said A.R.C. Proceedings. However, the second respondent proceeded with the above A.R.C. on the basis of publication of notice in a newspaper and set the petitioner ex-parte and ex-parte award was passed on 26.10.2006 for a sum of Rs.1,68,000/-. 3. While so, the petitioner received a notice in E.P.No.2394 of 2008 on the file of X Asst. City Civil Court, Chennai in the month of September 2009, to appear before the Court on 13.10.2009. In the E.P. notice the current address is shown. But, in the A.R.C. Proceedings notice was not sent to current address. On the other hand, the third respondent served notice through publication and got an ex-parte award. According to petitioner, he came to know about the ex-parte award only when he received notice in E.P. 4. In these circumstances, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent under Section 70 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982, as there is no provision in the Chit Funds Act to file an application to set aside the ex-parte award. The petitioner explained the aforesaid circumstances and sought to condone the delay. He further stated that there was no delay in filing an appeal taking into account of the date of knowledge. However, in order to avoid any technical objection and by way of abundant caution, he filed an appeal along with the petition to condone the delay of 1044 days in filing the appeal. 5. The petitioner explained the delay and stated that he was not issued notice at the correct address and he was set ex-parte based on the service of notice effected through publication in the newspaper. But, the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 29.03.2010 rejecting the appeal. 6. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition to quash the aforesaid order of the first respondent dated 29.03.2010 and for a direction to the first respondent to remit the A.R.C.No.551 of 2006 to the second respondent for fresh disposal. 7. Notice of motion was ordered on 30.04.2010. 8. The third respondent was served by private notice and nobody entered appearance for the third respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9. Heard Mr.R.Kamaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.Lita Srinivasan, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2. 10. I have perused ex-parte award passed in A.R.C.No.551 of 2006. In the said award, the address of the petitioner herein is shown as No.A.J., 27, 9th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai–40. But, in the E.P. notice dated 22.02.2009 in E.P.No.2394 of 2008 in A.R.C.No.551 of 2006 issued by the X Asst. City Civil Court, Chennai, the address of the petitioner is shown as No.36/69, Arimuthu Maistry Street, Choolai, Chennai 600 112. Since notice was not served in the address that is shown in the award proceedings, the third respondent got an order to serve notice through publication and also ultimately obtained an ex-parte award. This is categorically stated by the petitioner. In the condone delay petition as well as in the appeal filed under Section 70 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982, and also in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner categorically states that he was not served with any notice in the ARC Proceedings, that was initiated by the third respondent before the second respondent. But the first respondent failed to apply its mind to the aforesaid facts and understood as if the petitioner was served summons and remained ex-parte. It is stated in the award that in spite of publication of the notice in the newspaper, the petitioner failed to appear in the A.R.C. Proceedings. It is also stated that in spite of notice served on the petitioner, he did not appear. One fails to understood, if the petitioner failed to appear even after notice, there is no need to order for publication of notice through newspaper. There is no explanation from the third respondent for E.P. notice being served at the address of the petitioner at 36/69, Arimuthu Maistry Street, Choolai, Chennai 600 112, while in the A.R.C. Proceedings it was stated as A.J., 27, 9th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai–40. 11. In these circumstances, the first respondent is not correct in stating that the petitioner received summons and failed to appear. In my view, the petitioner adduced sufficient reasons for non appearance before the second respondent in the A.R.C. Proceedings as he was not served notice. It is categorically stated that he came to only know after the receipt of notice in E.P. proceedings. In these circumstances, the first respondent ought to have condoned the delay. I am therefore inclined to interfere with the order of the first respondent and accordingly the order of the first respondent is quashed. The first respondent is directed to hear the appeal on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible after hearing both sides. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 12. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar //true copy// Sub Asst.Registrar r n s To 1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Deputy Registrar of Chits, (Arbitrator for Central Madras Chit Fund Cases) Central Chennai, Chennai – 600 001. 1 cc to Mr.M.Kamalanathan, Advocate, Sr.No.60025 1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr.No.60432 W.P.No.9454 of 2010 LA {CO} TP/23.8.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/