Allowed

Sree Visalam Chit Fund Ltd., v. the District Registrar (Chits)

Madras HC20 Jun 2022WP(MD)/10463/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an order of the District Registrar (Chits) which disallowed a subscriber's appeal. Finding that the impugned order was passed without considering the petitioner's reply which was lost by the Registrar's office, the court set aside the order and remitted the matter back to allow a fresh hearing within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition allowed. Impugned order set aside and remitted back to the first respondent. Petitioner directed to furnish a fresh reply within twelve weeks.

Sree Visalam Chit Fund Ltd., Vs the District Registrar… — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.10463 of 2011

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.06.2022 CORAM

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶4

W.P.(MD).No.10463 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011

¶5

Sree Visalam Chit Fund Limited, represented by its Director, Shri C.T.Natarajan, 158, O.A. Street, Pallattur, Sivagangai District- 630 107.

¶6

... Petitioner Vs.

¶7

1.The District Registrar (Chits), Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.

¶8

2.S.Nachammal ... Respondents

¶9

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.3691/C/2011, dated 19.08.2011, signed 29.08.2011, passed by the first respondent and to quash the same.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Parthasarathy For R1 : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar, Government Pleader for Mr.M.Ramesh, Government Advocate For R2 : Mr.Babu Rajendran *****

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent herein, under which a subscriber's appeal has been allowed directing the petitioner Foreman to refund the amount that has been retained by them in violation of the Chit Fund Act.

¶13

2.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that they received a notice from the first respondent on 29.07.2011 for which they have given a reply on 02.08.2011. The first respondent has originally passed an order on 22.08.2011 as if none of them have appeared or offered any explanation to the notice. However, the first respondent has chosen to pass an amended order on 29.08.2011, to the effect that the same representative appeared from the petitioner Company and no explanation was offered by them.

¶14

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

¶15

1/3

¶16

W.P.(MD).No.10463 of 2011

¶17

3.Time was granted to the learned Government Pleader Office to verify the reply sent by the petitioner Company on 02.08.2011 in the files. However, they are not able to trace the same.

¶18

4.Considering the fact that the first respondent has chosen to pass an order on 19.08.2011 and thereafter, modified the same on 29.08.2011, with regard to the appearance of the representative of the petitioner Company, this Court finds that the first respondent Office has lost the reply sent by the petitioner Company. In such circumstances of the matter, this Court finds that the impugned order in the Writ Petition has been passed without considering the reply sent by the petitioner Company.

¶19

5.The impugned order being passed without considering the reply sent by the petitioner Company is set aside and remitted back to the first respondent. The petitioner Company is directed to furnish a fresh reply to the notice issued by the first respondent. Based upon the said reply, after giving opportunity to both the parties, the first respondent shall pass a fresh order. The petitioner Company is directed to issue a fresh reply after sending copy to the first respondent. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶20

6.With the above said observation, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶21

// True Copy //

¶22

/07/2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶23

Tmg

¶24

Note :

¶25

In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.

¶26

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

¶27

2/3

¶28

W.P.(MD).No.10463 of 2011

¶29

¶30

The District Registrar (Chits), Virudhunagar, Virudhunagar District.

¶31

+1 CC to M/s.S. PARTHASARATHY, Advocate ( SR-26806[F] dated 20/06/2022 )

¶32

+1 CC to M/s.SPL.GP ( SR-27064[F] dated 21/06/2022 )

¶33

+1 CC to M/s.BABU. RAJENDRAN, Advocate ( SR-27317[F] dated 22/06/2022 )

¶34

Order made in W.P.(MD).No.10463 of 2011 20.06.2022

¶35

SS/01/07/2022/ 3P 5C

¶36

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

¶37

3/3

Sree Visalam Chit Fund Ltd., v. the District Registrar (Chits)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sree Visalam Chit Fund Ltd., v. the District Registrar (Chits)

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

R. Esakki Thevar, Vs the District Collector

R.Thangaraj Vs the Director of Town

Pappa @ Pappamal Vs Regional Assistant

Chellasamy Vs Manikandan

M/S. Sri. S.Subbiah and Co., Vs the Secretary to the Govt.

S. Raja, Vs the Inspector General of