Dismissed¶¶30

C.Murugan v. M/S. Sriram Chits Tamilnadu

Madras HC9 Jan 2025CRP(MD)/1867/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Guarantors vs decree-holder chit company; death of principal borrower alleged before decree date; garnishee notice at EP stage; Rs.5,000/- insurance deduction from beneficiary's account; executing court to verify borrower's status on date of C.D.No.34 of 2016 order; decree-holder's absolute right to proceed against guarantors upheld; CRP under Article 227 dismissed, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, N.Senthilkumar J., 09.01.2025.

What did the court decide?

The question whether the first respondent should have proceeded against the legal heirs rather than the guarantors cannot be decided by this Court; the first respondent is at liberty to proceed as against the garnishees. ¶¶29

C.Murugan Vs M/S. Sriram Chits Tamilnadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the execution proceedings in E.P.No.92 of 2016 could be sustained against the guarantor-petitioners when, according to them, the principal borrower Balamurugan was no more on the date of the order in C.D.No.34 of 2016. +1 more

¶¶26

Court's answer

The first respondent has absolute right vested in it to initiate proceedings against the Revision Petitioners (guarantors); accordingly the Revision Petition is dismissed.

¶¶30

Ratio / Principle

¶¶29

Key takeaways

The Executing Court shall examine whether the second respondent Balamurugan was alive on the date of the order in C.D.No.34 of 2016; no document showing his death had been placed before the Executing Court, the death certificate being only in the typed set of the Revision Petition.ratio¶¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by guarantors (petitioners in E.P.No.92 of 2016 in C.D.No.34 of 2016, Additional District Munsif, Madurai) challenging the execution order dated 22.08.2017. Petitioners contended the principal borrower/beneficiary (second respondent, N.Balamurugan) died on 10.09.2014, i.e., before the order in C.D.No.34 of 2016, that the decree-holder (M/s.Sriram Chits Tamil Nadu (P) Limited) suppressed the death in the execution petition, and that the decree-holder ought to have proceeded against the borrower's legal heirs who own properties. The Court held that the question of whom the decree-holder should proceed against cannot be decided by it; the first respondent has absolute right to initiate proceedings against the guarantors and is at liberty to proceed against the garnishees. The Executing Court was directed to examine whether Balamurugan was alive on the date of the order in C.D.No.34 of 2016, noting that no death certificate had been filed before it (it appeared only in the typed set of the Revision Petition). Revision Petition dismissed with no costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED: 09.01.2025

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

¶5

C.R.P.(MD)(PD)No.1867 of 2017 and C.M.P.(MD)Nos.9749 and 9750 of 2017

¶6

1.C.Murugan 2.Sivakumar

3.N.Padmanabaraj

... Petitioners

-vs.-

1.M/s.Sriram Chits Tamil Nadu (P) Limited, represented by its Anna Nagar Branch Foreman, Madurai -20.

¶11

2.N.Balamurugan

¶12

3.The Regional Manager, TNSTC Madurai Limited, TNSTC Regional Office, Bye Pass Road, Ellis Nagar, Madurai – 20.

¶13

...Respondents

¶14

PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside order in E.P.No.92 of 2016 in C.D.No.34 of 2016 passed by the Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai on 22.08.2017.

¶15

For Petitioners :Mr.R.Ramasamy For R1 :Mr.V.Nagarajan For R2 :Died For R3 :No appearance

¶16

________________ Page 1 of 6_

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The Revision Petitioners have challenged the order passed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Madurai in E.P.No.92 of 2016, dated 22.08.2017.

¶20

2.The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the second respondent, namely, Balamurugan, is the principal borrower and the petitioners are the guarantors and they came to know about the proceedings only at the EP stage by way of garnishee notice. According to the revision petitioners, the said beneficiary, Balamurugan, died on 10.09.2014.

¶21

3.The learned Counsel for the petitioners further contended that the legal heirs of the second respondent, Balamurugan, have valid property, against whom the first respondent could have proceeded. However, for the reasons best known to them, they have proceeded against the guarantors, the petitioners herein. Though the submissions do not find consideration of this Court, however, a submission made by the petitioners is that after the demise of Balamurugan, even at the time of filing the execution petition, the first

¶22

Page 2 of 6

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

respondent has not made a mention about the death of the beneficiary. Apart from this, a sum of Rs.5,000/- has been deducted from the account of the beneficiary towards the insurance policy.

¶25

4.The learned Counsel for the petitioners further contended that the first respondent was not aware of the death of the beneficiary and without even knowing the beneficiary, a sum of Rs.5,000/- has been deducted towards the insurance. He further submitted that the first respondent had mechanically proceeded in the E.P. Proceedings.

¶26

5.It is not in dispute, that, it is for the first respondent to initiate appropriate proceedings to recover the money either from the principal or from the borrower. The Revision Petitioners are the guarantors and their contention is that when the principal borrower is no more on the date of the order passed in C.D.No.34 of 2016 and the legal heirs are having sufficient properties and means, the first respondent ought to have initiated proceedings to recover the same.

¶27

________________ Page 3 of 6_

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

6.Though such a question cannot be decided by this Court, the first respondent is at liberty to proceed as against the garnishees. The Executing Court shall look into the fact that on the date of passing the order in C.D.No.34 of 2016, whether the second respondent Balamurugan was alive on that date. There is no documents to show before this Court that the said Balamurugan is no more. The learned Counsel for the first respondent contended that death certificate finds place only in the typed set filed along with the Revision Petition and the death certificate of Balamurugan, principal borrower has not been filed before the Executing Court.

¶30

7.This Court is of the view that the first respondent has absolute right vested with them to initiate proceedings against the Revision Petitioners. Accordingly, the present Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶31

09.01.2025

¶32

Internet :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No cmr

¶33

________________ Page 4 of 6_

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

¶36

The Additional District Munsif, Madurai.

¶37