THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY COMPANY APPLICATION No.1001 of 2011 (Dated : 19-09-2011) Between: M/s. Mamatha Chit Fund (Petitioner) Ltd., (In Prov.Liqn.) ….…Applicant. A n d Sri K. Achut Rao and others. ….…Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY COMPANY APPLICATION No.1001 of 2011 ORDER: 1. This application has been filed by the Official Liquidator representing M/s.Mamatha Chit Fund (P) Limited (in Prov. Liqn) under Section 446 (2) (b) of the Companies Act, 1956 read with Rules 9 and 11 (b) of the Companies Court Rules, 1959 seeking decree against the respondents 1 and 3 to 6 jointly and severally for a sum of Rs.5,300/- along with interest at 12% per annum w.e.f 07-07-1999 till the date of realization. 2. This Court, by an order dated 23.03.2011 made in C.P.No.13 of 2002 appointed Official Liquidator attached to this Court as Provisional Liquidator of M/s.Mamatha Chit Fund (P) Limited (in Prov. Liqn). As per the records of the Company in Liquidation, K. Achyut Rao-1st respondent became the prized subscriber to T.No.14 of Chit Group No.SP24B valued at Rs.10,000/- for a period of 20 months at the rate of Rs.500/- each. He received prize amount of Rs.6,200/- against a bid amount of Rs.7,000/- by way of cheque No.521559, dated 05-01-1999 after deducting an amount of Rs.800/- towards arrears of subscription dues plus verification fee in respect of the said prized ticket. He paid subscriptions for seven months at the rate of Rs.500/- per month totalling to Rs.3,500/-. He committed default in paying the subsequent installments. The respondents 2 to 6 stood as sureties for the 1st respondent. The Official Liquidator issued notice to respondent No.1 on 16.6.2003 calling upon him to pay the amount due under the above referred chit. Another notice dated 09.07.2010 issued to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein by the office of the Official Liquidator calling upon them to pay the amount due under the above referred chit. Notice sent to the 1st respondent has been served whereas, notice sent to the respondent No.2 returned unserved with an endorsement “addressee expired” and whereas notice sent to the 3rd respondent returned unserved with an endorsement “addressee not claimed”. On enquiry, the Official Liquidator came to know that the 2nd respondent is no more and respondents 4 to 6 are his legal representatives. The Official Liquidator issued a notice dated 20-09- 2010 to the respondents 4 to 6 calling upon them to pay the amount due to the company. Notice sent to the respondents 4 to 6 returned unserved with postal remarks “not claimed”. Hence this application. 3. Notice to the respondents came to be ordered on 23.3.2011. Notice sent to the 1st respondent returned unserved with an endorsement “addressee refused” and therefore, notice to the 1st respondent deemed to have been served. Notice sent to the 2nd respondent returned unserved with an endorsement “addressee expired”. Notice sent to the 3rd respondent returned unserved. The Official Liquidator withdrew the claim against the 3rd respondent on 5.7.2011. Notice sent to the respondents 4 to 6 returned with an endorsement as “addressee unclaimed”. Therefore, notice to respondents 4 to 6 is stated to have been served. 4. Affidavit of Sri R. Ramakrishna Reddy in lieu of chief examination has been placed on record. 25 documents have been filed and they are marked as Exs.A1 to A25. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant and perused the evidence of P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A25. Respondent No.1 became the prized subscriber to the chit bearing Ticket No.14 of Chit Group No.SP24B valued at Rs.10,000/- and received prized amount of Rs.6,200/- through cheque bearing No.521559, dated 05-01-1999. Ex.A5 is the prized subscriber bid payment final statement, which contains the signature of the 1st respondent. Ex.A11 is the certified true copy of the chit ledger folio in respect of ticket No.14 of Group No.SP24B. As per the entries in the ledger extract, the 1st respondent paid seven installments and committed default in paying the subsequent installments. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 stood as guarantors for the 1st respondent. Respondents 4 to 6 are the legal representatives of the 2nd respondent. The evidence of P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A25 amply prove the claim of the applicant against the 1st respondent and the respondents 4 to 6. 6. In that view of the matter, the application is allowed in part granting the decree in favour of the applicant against the respondent No.1 and against the estate of the 3rd respondent- R. Prakash in the hands of respondents 4 to 6 for a sum of Rs.5,300/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum w.e.f. 07-07-1999 till the date of realization. ______________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Date:19.9.2011 mrb