Dismissed

Geesa Venkatesham v. M/s.Manyasree Chits (India) Pvt.Ltd

Telangana HC1 Oct 2024CRP/2089/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition because the petitioners had availed an alternative remedy by filing an appeal before the Principal Secretary to Revenue. Consequently, maintaining the revision was deemed a futile exercise.

What the court decided

AI extract

Geesa Venkatesham Vs M/s.Manyasree Chits (India) Pvt.Ltd — Arbitration | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY THE FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E,V. VENUGOPAL

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2089 OF 2024

¶6

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the Order passed on 2310512024 in EP.No. 142 of 2024 in ARB No.15412021 on the file the court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, at Mancherial, on the Award dt.1111012023 and Recovery Certificate d1.081O212O24 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Chits/ Arbrtrator at Adilabad which is ineligible under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1 996 and declare the proceedings as void ab initio.

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 . Geesa Venkatesham, Sio. Meeniah, Aged about 49 years, Occ. Asst.Chainman at GDK SCCL OC-lll, R/o. Q No.D-414, Gandhinagar, Godavarikhani, Peddapalli District.

¶9

Nulakathati Sateesh, S/o. Lalaiah, Aged 31 years, Occ. Electrician, Rio H.No.16-1-89, Near Ramalayam, AMC, Bellampalli, Mancherial District.

¶10

Petitioner/Opponent No.4&6

¶11

AND

¶12

'1. M/s.Manyasree Chits (lndia) Pvt.Ltd, Mancherial Branch, Represented by its Foreman, Sri.Beerukukuri Ravi Prasad Rao S/o. Satyanarayana Rao.

¶13

... RespondenUDisputant

¶14

The Deputy Registrar, Chits/Arbitrartor Adilabad District, at Adilabad.

¶15

The General Manager., SCCL, Ramagundam Area-ll, Peddapalli Diskict.

¶16

The General Manager,, SCCL, Mandamarri Area, Mancherial District.

¶17

Boga Swarajya Laxmi (Died).

¶18

Geesa Ramulu, S/o. Meeniah, Aged about 55 years, Occ. SCCL Employee. R/o.Q No.D-54, Subhash Nagar, Bellampalli, Mancherial District.

¶19

Janjerla Venkateshwarlu, S/o.Posham, Aged about 56 years, Occ- SCCL Employee, R/o.Q.No.234'1 , Thilak Nagar, Near Water Tank, Godavarikahni, Peddapalli District.

¶20

8 Qga{r.tn^{S_rplvqs Rao. S/o.Poasham,Agelt 57 years.} Occ. SCCL Emptoyee, R/o.Q.No SRT-248, 2tnctine Basthi,^" Beilaripafli, Mancheriat bisirrct (Respondent Nos.5 to B are necessary parties to itris eetitionl

¶21

... Respondents/Opponents

¶22

(Respondent Nos.5 to B are necessary parties to this petition)

¶23

IANO: 2OF2 024

¶24

Petition under section i 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the aff davit filed in support of -the,^{petition, ir,e-ttigh court may be preased to jrant} stay the order passed on 231o3t2024 in Ep. No. 142 oI 2024 on ihe file the lourt of the Principal Junior court at Mancherial in the order passed on 11t10t2023 by arbitraiion proceedings in ARB No.514 of 2021 by Deputy Registrar of chits/ Arbitrator at Adilabad is ineligible and void ab initio under^-sectLn 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,.1996, pending the CRp.

¶25

Couns,:l for the Petitioner :SRl. Veera Savan Chakravarthy Dara

¶26

Couns:l for the Respondent No.1 : Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar

¶27

Couns-.1 for the Respondent No.3&4: p.Sri Harsha Reddy

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

¶30

¶31

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.^VENUGOPAL

¶32

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.20a9 0F^2o24

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

This Civil Revision Petition is^{frledseekingto set asidethe} order dated 23.05.2024 in^{E.P.No. 142 of 2024 in ARB No.514 of} 2O2l on the frle of the learned^{Principal Junior Civil Judge, at} Mancherial (for short, "the trial^{Court") on the Award dated} 11.1O.2O23 and Recovery^{Certificate dated08.02.2024passedby the} learned Deputy Registrar of^{Chits/Arbitrator.}

¶35

Heard Sri Veera Savan Chakravarthy,^{learned counsel for the} petitioners and Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar,^{learned counselfor} respondent No.^1.

¶36

The Lrrief facts of the case are^{that respondent No.l/disputant} is a Registered Chit Fund Company^{and involvedin carrying the Chit} Fund business in accordance^{with the provisions of the Chit Funds} Act, 7982. The Company^{obtained previous sanctionfrom the} Assistant Chit Registrar on^{11.O7.2O17 to commence a chit series of} MSTO3P. Respondent No.5/the Iirst^{opponent is the subscriberof} disputant Company and^{subscribedto ticket No.31 in the chit group,} MSTO3P for a value^{of Rs.1O,OO,00O/-whichis payable at the rate of} Rs.2O,0O0/- per month^for a^{period of 50 months. She participated} in the chit auction hgft on^{18.01.2018 and became successful} bidder, having agreed to^{forgo an amountof Rs.4,O0,0OO/-out of the}

¶37

¶38

¶39

chit value being Rs. IO,OO,OOO/-. After being deciared as the sur:cessful bidder, she submitted opponent Nos.2 to 6 as the Guarantors who executed Agreement of Guarantee and all the opponents have executed promissory note and other necessary dorruments in favour of the disputant Company for proper payment of lhe future subscriptions by the first opponent. Thereafter, the first opponent has received tlr..e pnze amount of Rs.S,66, 1O0/-. It is stated thzrt the first opponent had paid only 28 installments and therearter, committed default of paying the 29e installment. The Company had issued legal notice dated IO.O9.2O2O. But in vain. Hence, the case was taken up by vide ARB No.514 ol 2021 before the Deputy Registrar of Chits/Arbitrator, at Adilabad. Vide Award dated 11.1O.2O23 in ARB No.514 of 2021, the Arbitrator had ordered that the Company is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.5,a5,609/- jointly and severally from opponents Nos.l to 6 together with interest @ l8%o per annum on principal amount of Rs.4,24,21O/- from the date of dispute to till the date of realization and also Rs.14,3OO/- towards costs of the dispute. However, the Company was directed to pay the diridend of each draw to opponent No.1 as and when she pays the Arvard amount. Aggrieved by the same, pelitioners/opponent Nos.4 arLd 6 preferred the present Revision seeking to set aside the irrrpugned order. I (

\ \

Learned counsel for the^{petitioners submittedthat respondent} No.S/Principal^judgment debtor had expired^{on 28.04.2O23 and the} Award is not enforceable in law against^{the otherpersonsin the said} proceedings. He stated that summons were not served on^the petitioners and they were not afforded an opportunity^{of hearing. The} Recovery Certihcate dated O8.05.2O24^passed by^{the learned} Arbitrator is contrary to the^{procedure enunciatedunderRule50 of} the Andhra Pradesh Chit Fund^{Rules, 2008' He furtherstated that} the petitioners came to know^about the^{Awarddated ll .1O.2O23} when respondent Nos.3 and 4^{had servedthe order of attachment} vide Ref No.MMR/PERlLl065124/2575^{dated7a.O6.2O24and Ref} No.RG2/ OC3EP(o) /F006/ 363 1 dated^{7a.O6.2O24.Therefore,relying} on the decisions^passed by^{the HonbleSupreme Court in Bharat} Broadband Network Limited^{Vs. United TelecomsLimitedland} Telecommunication Consultants^{India Limlted Vs. Shivaa} Trading2, wherein it is held^{that any arbitration proceedingsby an} ineligible Arbitrator under Section^{12(5) of the Arbitrationand} Conciliation Act, 1996 are^{uoid abinitio,learnedcounsel seeks to set} aside the impugned order.

¶44

This Court vide order dated^{12.07.2024granted interimstay} of all further proceedings in^{E.P.No. 142 of 2024 on the file of the}

¶45

t ( I

¶46

'2019^{(s) scc} )r.55 2 2024 SCC O6line Del 2937

¶47

¶48

¶49

leetrned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Malcherial, subject to the petitioners depositing Rs. 1,00,000/- within a period of four (04) weeks from today.

¶50

Learned counsel for the petitioners, by filing memo vide U.S.R.No.75649 of 2024, submitted that, in compliance of the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioners have deposited an amount of Rs.1,O0,0OO/- to the credit of E.p.No. 142 of 2024 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mancherial vide chLallan No.64Oi498642 dated, 24.O2 .2024. He further submitted that the petitioners have also preferred an Appeal before the principal Sr:cretary to Revenue, Telangana and the same is pending acljudication.

¶51

Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 would submit that the pt:titioners have availed the alternative remedy of preferring an appeal before the appropriate forum and therefore, keeping the R,:vision pending would be a futile exercise. Therefore, he seeks for p:rssing of appropriate orders.

¶52

Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon considering the fact that the petitioners have a'railed an alternative remedy of preferring an appeal before the Pdncipa| Secretary to Revenue, Telangana this Court is of the I

opinion that keeping the Revision^{pending would be a futile exercise} and the Revision is liable to be dismissed.

¶57

Accordingly, the Civit Revision Petition is^{dismissed.Needless} to mention, the petitioners are at liberty^{to l-rle an appropriate} application before the trial^{Courtfor withdrawal of the amount.Upon} filing such application, the trial Court^{is directed to passappropriate} orders, in accordance with law. No^costs.

¶58

Miscellaneous applications,^{if any, pendingshall stand closed.}

¶59

Sd/. V. KAVITHA ASSISTANT GISTRAR

¶60

//TRUE COPY// SE ION OFFICER

¶61

To,

¶62