Petitioner challenged an order confirming a chit award, claiming his signature was forged despite similar claims by another party being accepted. Court set aside the rejection and remitted matter for forensic examination.
Writ Petition allowed; order of First Respondent set aside; matter remitted for forensic examination; award kept in abeyance.
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.(MD) No.23039 of 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 25.11.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
W.P.(MD) No.23039 of 2015 and M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2015 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.8771 and 16998 of 2016
K.Ravindran
... Petitioner
/vs./
5.N.Madhavan Pillai ... Respondents
1/6
PRAYER:
W.P.(MD) No.23039 of 2015
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to ARC No.14 of 2005 dated 27.06.2012 on the file of the 2nd Respondent herein as confirmed in G.O.(2D)No.80 dated 14.10.2015 on the file of Commercial Taxes and Registration (G) Department, quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Ramanathan
For R1 & R2 : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Additional Government Pleader
For R3 : Mr.C.Kishore
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent confirming the award of the second respondent.
this Court that the third respondent herein, the Proprietor of a Chit, based on whose claim, an award was passed by the second respondent, is no more. It is the case of the petitioner that he had not stood as Security to the fourth respondent,
who was the subscriber of the chit. He would submit that when a similar plea was raised by the fifth respondent herein, the first respondent had remitted the matter
2/6
W.P.(MD) No.23039 of 2015
back to the second respondent to send the disputed signature to the Forensic Department and thereafter pass appropriate orders. Upon such remittence, the second respondent having sent to the disputed signature of the fifth respondent to the Forensic Department and having a positive report with regard to the claim of the first respondent had deleted the name of the fifth respondent from the array of the parties. However, in this case, a different yardstick has been applied and the case of the petitioner had been rejected.
3/6
W.P.(MD) No.23039 of 2015
the first respondent without considering the claim of the petitioner is an arbitrary exercise of power. In fine, the order passed by the first respondent is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the second respondent to do the same exercise of sending the disputed signatures for forensic examination. Till such time, the award passed by the second respondent shall be kept in abeyance. The said exercise shall be carried out by the second respondent within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Index : Yes / No 25.11.2024 Internet : Yes / No mm To
4/6
W.P.(MD) No.23039 of 2015
5/6
W.P.(MD) No.23039 of 2015
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
mm
W.P.(MD) No.23039 of 2015
25.11.2024
6/6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order of the First Respondent rejecting the petitioner's claim was an arbitrary exercise of power given the different treatment accorded to the Fifth Respondent in a similar plea.
Whether the disputed signatures of the petitioner required to be sent for forensic examination like those of the Fifth Respondent.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
K Ravindran
Secretary to Government, Commercial Tax Department
Deputy Registrar of Chits, Marthandam
P Venugopalan Nair
K Mohanan
N Madhavan Pillai
K.Kumareswari Babu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
