Disposed

Hameed Kidanhi v. Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC17 Nov 2021WP/24478/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a recovery certificate issued by the Arbitrator of Chits for non-compliance with Chit Fund Rules regarding notices. The Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the certificate pending appeal on merit and stay execution proceedings upon deposit of money.

What did the court decide?

The Petitioner is permitted to approach the Arbitrator of Chits to recall the recovery certificate, deposit Rs.1,00,000/-, and seek hearing of the pending appeal, with execution proceedings stayed pen

Hameed Kidanhi Vs Government of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 17.11.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

W.P.No.24478 of 2021 and W.M.P.Nos.25800 & 25823 of 2021

¶6

Hameed Kidanhi .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Home Secretary, Tamil Nadu, Chennai-600009.

¶9

Sree Gokulam Chit & Finance Company (P) Ltd., No.49, Arcot Road,

¶10

Kodambakkam, Chennai-600024.

¶11

The Arbitrator of Chits, Central Chennai. Electronic Complex, Guindy Industrial Estate, 2^nd Floor, Chennai-32. .. Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Petitioner has filed this petition under 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in ARC No.82 of 2011 on the file of the third Respondent and quash the impugned recovery certificate dated 10.01.2017 issued by the third Respondent in ARC No.82 of 2011.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. P. Sidharthan

¶14

For Respondents : Mr. U. Baranihdharan Additional Government Pleader

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The Petitioner has filed this Petition seeking issuance of the Writ of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in ARC No.82 of 2011 on the file of the third Respondent and quash the impugned recovery certificate dated 10.01.2017 issued by the third Respondent in ARC No.82 of 2011.

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

Since no adverse order is being passed against R2, notice on the 2^nd Respondent is dispensed with.

¶19

The Case of the petitioner is that he is a business man at Kerala who subscribed to a Chit for Rs.3,00,000/- in the year 2008 with the 2^nd respondent Company. Having paid Rs.2,82,385/-, the petitioner sought for the closure of the chit from the 2^nd respondent who having perused all the relevant documents produced by the petitioner, demanded Rs.55,000/- from the petitioner to be paid towards balance chit amount. Therefore, the petitioner issued a legal notice to the 2^nd respondent demanding closure of the chit account and return of documents produced by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner before the 3^rd respondent by the 2^nd respondent vide ARC No.82 of 2011 in which an award of Rs.50,615/- has been passed against the petitioner without serving mandatory notice on the petitioner against which the petitioner filed an appeal before the 3^rd respondent. Subsequently, the 2^nd Respondent had obtained impugned Recovery Certificate from the 3^rd Respondent in ARC No.82 of 2011 vide order dated 10.01.2017. Hence the present Writ Petition is filed seeking the above relief.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequent to the order passed by the 3^rd Respondent, 2^nd Respondent had initiated E.P. Proceedings in E.P.No.104 of 2017 after a lapse of five years against which the petitioner filed O.P.(C) No.1932 of 2018 before the High Court of Kerala in which certain orders have been passed, including deposit of Rs.25,000/-.

¶21

Though very many grounds have been raised, however, in view of the submission made by the petitioner, the rule 55(1) & 3 of the Tamil Nadu Chit Fund Rules,1984 has not been complied with by the 2^nd Respondent as the proceedings in E.P.No.104 of 2017 were initiated after a lapse of 5 years, this Court without going into the merits of the case permits the petitioner to approach the 3^rd Respondent by filing appropriate petition for recalling the Recovery Certificate issued by the 3^rd Respondent and make a deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and upon receipt of the same delay, if any, shall be condoned and the appeal pending on the file of the 3^rd Respondent be heard on merits and disposed of in accordance with law within a period of 3 months thereafter and the E.P. Proceedings shall not be proceeded with further until the disposal of the appeal by the 3^rd Respondent.

¶22

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of with

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶24

the aforesaid direction. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶25

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶26

//True Copy//

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

NHS

¶29

¶30

The Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Tamil Nadu, Chennai-600 009.

¶31

The Arbitrator of Chits Central Chennai Electronic Complex Guindy Industrial Estate 2^nd Floor, Chennai – 32

¶32

+1cc to Mr.P.Sidharthan, Advocate, S.R.No.58852

¶33

+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.59450

¶34

W.P.No.24478 of 2021 and W.M.P.Nos.25800 & 25823 of 2021

¶35

NMI(CO) SU(14/12/2021)

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Hameed Kidanhi v. Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hameed Kidanhi v. Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakshmi Devi.T Vs State Rep by

Dr.N.Veerappan Vs State of Tamil Nadu

K.Sellamuthu Vs The Director of Matriculation Schools

S.Priya Vs The Managing Director

Paavendhar Industrial School Vs The Commissioner

Dr.S.Karthika Vs National Medical Commission