Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 723 (MAD)

D. Rajalingam v. Government of Tamil Nadu

2012-02-10

R.SUDHAKAR

body2012
Judgment :- 1. The writ petitions are filed challenging the orders of the first respondent rejecting the appeals filed by the petitioners as belated. 2. In all these cases, the petitioners, the subscribers of chits, aggrieved by the order of the Arbitrator, the second respondent filed appeals to the Government under Section 70 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 along with their applications for condonation of delay. The appeals and the applications were rejected by the Government stating that the applications for condonation of delay are not supported by valid reasons and no documentary evidence was produced to condone the delay in filing the appeals. Challenging the same, the writ petitions have been filed. 3. The petitioners through their Advocate submitted a letter on 7.2.1997 to the Deputy Registrar of Chits in all these cases and the content of the letter is as follows:- "In the above Chit, I appeared for Ms.Saraswathi, Mr.Bojappan and Mr.B.Rajendran who are the defendants and I have also filed Counter Statement on behalf of the aforesaid 3 persons in the above matter. The above case was posted for hearing on 17.10.96 and as there was no Presiding Officer, the above proceedings was adjourned and the defendants were not informed about the date of adjournment. I was also not informed about the next date of adjournment. I, therefore, request you to inform the date of adjournment of the above Chit Proceeding so as to enable me to appear and contest the proceedings on behalf of the defendants." 4. In response to the letter dated 7.2.1997, the District Registrar in charge gave a reply to the learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants that as and when the case is taken up by the respondents intimation will be given to them. Thereafter, it transpires is that on various dates viz., 16.10.1998, 23.10.1998 28.10.1998 and 10.11.1998 the Arbitrator passed the award exparte stating that notices sent to the petitioners were returned unserved and therefore the exparte award was passed. According to the petitioners, only after receipt of the notice from the third respondent for recovering the amount, the petitioners came to know about the award of the second respondent. Thereafter, the petitioners proceeded to file appeals on the ground that an ex-parte award was passed without intimating their counsel about the arbitration proceedings and summons were not taken to the correct address of the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners proceeded to file appeals on the ground that an ex-parte award was passed without intimating their counsel about the arbitration proceedings and summons were not taken to the correct address of the petitioners. The appeals were filed along with the condone delay applications which came to be dismissed as belated. The main plea taken in these cases, is that when in response to the letter of the petitioner's counsel a specific intimation was sent by the Deputy Registrar of Chits to the counsel for the petitioners/ appellants stating that date of adjournment would be intimated later, it is incumbent on the authority to inform the counsel about the date of hearing of the arbitration proceedings and thereafter to proceed with the matter, which the second respondent Arbitartor has failed to do so. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents a plea has been taken that notices were sent to the petitioners, but the said notices were refused by the petitioners. But that statement is not supported by material documents. In the absence of the same, this court is not inclined to accept such statement made in the counter affidavit. The orders under challenge rejecting the appeals on the ground that sufficient cause has not been shown is perverse and without application of mind. Learned Counsel for the petitioners also brought to the notice of this court the order passed by the Division Bench of this court in similar set of facts in W.A.No.231 of 2004 dated 8.4.2010 wherein the order of the first respondent has been set aside. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned orders of the first respondent are set aside and the petitions for condonation of delay filed by the petitioners are allowed and the first respondent is directed to take the appeals preferred by the petitioners on file and dispose of the same after affording opportunity to the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible. The deposit already made by the petitioners in pursuant to the interim order of this court shall be taken into consideration at the time of deciding the appeals. 7. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs.