Challenging an arbitral award and confirming order in a chit fund dispute due to alleged unexplained delay in filing appeal, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding the award final and binding.
Writ petition dismissed; connected miscellaneous petition closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.13604 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.13604 of 2013 and
W.M.P.No.29733 of 2018
K.Ravi @ Madasamy
... Petitioner
Vs.
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of certiorari, to call for the records of award passed in A.R.C.No.10 of 2010 dated 18.10.2010 on the file of the 2nd respondent which was confirmed in G.O.(D) 530, Commercial Taxes and Registration (G) Department dated 03.12.2012 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same.
Page 1 of 6
W.P.No.13604 of 2013
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Jesus Moris Ravi For R1 & R2 : Mr.Abishek Murthy Government Advocate For R3 : Mr.K.V.Anantha Krishnan
O R D E R
The writ petitioner has been filed challenging the award passed in
A.R.C.No.10 of 2010 dated 18.10.2010 and the order passed by the 1st respondent confirming the award in G.O.(D).No.530, Commercial Taxes and Registration (G) Department dated 03.12.2012.
Page 2 of 6
W.P.No.13604 of 2013
and the 3
and the 3rd respondent Chit Fund Company initiated Arbitration proceedings. An award was passed on 18.10.2010 in A.R.C.No.10 of 2010. The petitioner failed to file an appeal within the time limit prescribed. However, he preferred an Appeal before the 1st respondent after a lapse of about 1 year and 8 months. The 1st respondent provided an opportunity to the writ petitioner to explain the delay. Since the learned counsel, who appeared for the petitioner requested adjournment, the 1st respondent found that there is no reason to grant such adjournment and the petitioner has not explained the delay for filing an Appeal. Since the delay was unexplained, the 1st respondent rejected the Appeal.
Page 3 of 6
W.P.No.13604 of 2013
Page 4 of 6
W.P.No.13604 of 2013
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
07.03.2023
Jeni Index : Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes
To
Page 5 of 6
W.P.No.13604 of 2013
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Jeni
W.P.No.13604 of 2013
07.03.2023
Page 6 of 6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the unexplained delay in filing the first appeal justifies setting aside the award and confirming order.
Whether the writ petitioner is entitled to condonation of delay and condonation of the award becoming final.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K.Ravi @ Madasamy
The Secretary to the Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department
The Deputy Registrar of Chits / Arbitrator, Tuticorin
Shriram Chits Tamil Nadu (P) Ltd.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
