P. Ravinder Reddy S/o Penta Reddy, Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

P. Ravinder Reddy S/o Penta Reddy, Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was dismissed, miscellaneous applications if any pending were ordered to stand closed, and there was no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the warrant dated 27.04.2015 issued in EP No.118 of 2015 in A.B.R/C.F No.245 of 2014 and the award dated 25.08.2014 passed in A.B.R/C.F No.245 of 2014 by respondent No.2 without issuing notice to the petitioners are illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and ought to be set aside. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the petitioners did not pursue the award proceedings diligently, the relief sought in the writ petition is not sustainable.

Ratio / Principle

On perusal of the award record, respondent No.2 had issued notice: Ex.P10 is marked as the postal acknowledgment of notice to petitioner No.1 and Ex.P11 is marked as the postal return cover of petitioner No.2.

Key takeaways

The addresses of petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 appear to be one and the same, and learned counsel for the petitioners did not dispute the same; despite notice served on petitioner No.1, the petitioners did not choose to appear before respondent No.2, who accordingly passed the award dated 25.08.2014 ex parte.ratio¶53
The Court found no merits in the writ petition; the writ petition, being devoid of merits, was liable to be dismissed and was accordingly dismissed.ratio¶54

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition by two guarantors (P. Ravinder Reddy and N. Prathap Reddy) of a defaulted chit subscriber challenging (i) the warrant dated 27.04.2015 issued in EP No.118 of 2015 by the Prl. Junior Civil Judge, R.R. District Court at L.B.Nagar and (ii) the award dated 25.08.2014 in A.B.R/C.F No.245 of 2014 passed by the 2nd respondent (Dy. Registrar of Chits and Arbitrator) under the Chit Fund Act, 1982, on the plea that no notice was served on them. The Court observed from the award record that summons had been sought to be served personally, by registered post with acknowledgment and by paper publication; Ex.P10 (postal acknowledgment) pertained to petitioner No.1 and Ex.P11 (postal return cover) to petitioner No.2, whose addresses appeared to be one and the same - a fact counsel did not dispute. Having been served, the petitioners did not appear before the Registrar nor pursue the award proceedings diligently; the writ petition was held devoid of merits and dismissed, with miscellaneous applications closed and no order as to costs.

[^32ss ]

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Junisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FI\E

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRl JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN^KUMAR

WRIT PETITION NO:14182 OF 2015

Between:

P. Ravinder Reddy, S/o: Penta^{Reddy, Aged3-l years,} .Occ: .^Business, Rl/o Plot No. 568, Flat No.203. Vijaya Residency,^{Road No.4' Budda Nagar,} Uppal, Ranga Reddy District.

N. Prathap Reddy, S/o: Laxma^{Reddy,Aged 3--1 ygqr.s'} .Oqc: .^Business, Rl/o Plot t{o. 568. Ftat No.203, Vuaya^{Residency, Road No.4, Budda Nagar'} Uppal, Ranga Reddy District.

...PETITIONERS

AND

1 State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal^{Seqretary, Reyenue and Stamps} Department, Secretariat. Lovver Tank^{Bund, Hyderabad.}

2 The Dy. Registrar of Chits and Arbitrator,^{Red Hills, Hyderabad.}

Sriram Chits Pvt.Ltd., Rep. by^its Sr.Manager-cum-GPA^{Holder' Shivam} Branch, Hyderabad.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Adicle 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith, the HighCourt maybe} pleased to issue an appropriat€ writ or direction, more^{particularly a Writ in the} nature of Mandamus declaring the warrant issued^{dt.27.04.15in EP No.118 of} 2015 in ABR/CF No.245 of 2014 as^{illegal, arbitraryandun-constitutional and} consequently set aside the award dated^{25.8.2014passed in ABR/CF No 245 of} 2014 on the file of^{2'd respondent}

1.A. NO:1OF 2015^(wP P. NO: 1 8585 0F 15)

Petition under section^{151CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin} theaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybepleasedtoissue interim directions to^{stayall further proceedings in EP No.118 of 2015in ABR/CF} No.245 of 2O14 on^{the file of Principal Juniorcivil Judge, RR District against the} award dated 25.8.2014^{on the file of 2nd respondentpendin-qdisposalof the writ} petition.

t.A. O:2OF 2O'15^{(WPMP. NO: 35394 OF 201s)}

Petition under section^{151 CPC praying that in the circ:umstancesstatedin} the affidavit filed^{in supportof the petition, the HighCourt may be pleasedto} extend the interim^{order dated 7.5.2015 passed in the above writ Petition.}

Counsel for the Petitioners:^{SRI RAJAGOPALLAVAN TAYI}

Counsel forthe Respondent^{No.1: GP FOR REVENUE}

Counsel for the^{RespondentNo.3: MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM}

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

THE HONOURABLE^SRI IUSTICE^{N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR}

WRITPETITIO N No.141.82^{of 2015}

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seekrng the^{followingprayer:}

"ta declare the uarrant isswd dt 27.04.1,5 in EP No.778 of 201'5 in ABRrcF No.245 of 2014^as illegal,^{arbitrary and un-constitutional} and consequently sct aside the^{award datrd25.8.m1'4 passedin} AB IVCF N o.245 of 2014^o n^the fle^{of 2il reqondent."}

Brief facts of the writ petition are that^{one Sri.'T.Sekhar Reddyis a} subscriber of respondent^{No.3 in ticket No.4 in chit group SHLC17 fora} value of Rs.5 lakhs @ Rs.10,000/-^{per month for a period of 50 months.} The said person had participated^{in the chit auction and by agreeing to} forego an amount of^Rs.1,55,000 /-^ottt of^{chit valueof Rs.5,00,000/-} became the successful bidder.^{Thereafter,respondent No.3 paid an} amount of Rs,3,45,000/- to Sekhar^{Reddyand the petitioners along with} one Sri.Y.Chenna Reddy stood^{as guarantors. Sri..T.SekharReddyhas} paid.22 installments and^{23'ainstallmentwas pairl in partandthereafter} committed default in payment^{to respondent No.3.}

Further case of the petitioners is that^{respondentNo.3 without} issuing prior notice to the Petitioners,^{filedA.B.R/C.F No.245 of 2074} under Section 64 and 66^{A of the C'hitFund Act 1982,for recovery of} Rs.2,99,906 /^- along^{with interest and respondent No.2 without issuing}

any notice to the petitioners passed^{the awarddated25.08.2014,stating}

the following:-

2

, -rE

"In exercise of powers anferred under Section under Section 69 of the Chit Fund Act, 1982, I do hereby order that in oiew of abooe disputant is found entitled to recooet an amount Rs.2,99,90640 along uith interest at 18% per annun, on tfu Pincipal amount of Rs.2,78,610-00 from i.e., 19-03-:).013 the datc of disputu till thr dote of realisation. The costs of the dispute is Rs.7,8L4-00 are also auarded. The dis;pute is accordingly awarded in faoour of the disputant and against the opponents No:^-1 to 4 jointly and seuerally. Any other payment made shall be adjustcd after fling of the di:pute in aforesaid quantif.ed entitled a mount. The disputant shall recoaer the amount by sale of the moaable and immoaable properties, Salaries, by any other mode of execation as per law."

Thereafter, respondent No.3 for execution of award dated 25.08.2074 filed EP.No.118 of 2015 in A.B.R/C.F No.245 of 2014 and the Prl.)unior Civil Judge, R.R. District Court at L.B.Nagar. issued warrant dated 27.04.2015. Aggrieved by the warrant datetl 27.M.2015 in EP.No.118 of 2015 in A.B.R/C.F No.245 of 2074 and award dated 25.08.201.4 in A.B.R/C.F No.245 of 2014 this writ petiriorr is filed.

Leamed counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent No.2 without taking into consideration the fact that the notices were not served on the petitioners, passed award dated 25.08.201,4 and even in the award respondent No.2 failed to observe that on which date and in which newspapers substitute notice was served. Learnecl counsel for the petitioners further submits that respondent No.3 filed E.p against the petitioners and not against the principal debtor and pray this Court to declare the warrant dated 27.04.2015 in Ep.No.1rg of 20r 5 as illegal and

3

r

set aside the award dated 25.08.2014 passed in A.B.R/C.F No.245 of 20]4.

Heard and perused the material available on record

It is pertinent to note that the petitioners in this writ petition are praying to declare the warrant dated 27 -04.2015 in EP.No.118 of 2015 as illegal, however, the peritioners did not file a copy of the same in the material papers. That apart, the consequent prayer sought by the petitioners in this writ petition is that to set aside the award da ted 25.08.2074 passed in A.B.R/C.F No.245 of 20'1.4, on the ground that the respondent No.2 without issuing any notice had passed the award

8 It is noticed that the respondent No.2 in the award dated

\ \

25.08.2014 has observed the following:-

"The case uas taken up for heaing by this Court the summons unre sent to the oppo,unt No.7 to 4 through ryrsonal seroice and by uny of Regd.post tttith acknou'ledgment due by and substifute roice of suntntons by ruay of paper publicatiotr by the disputant company to appear tle opponents No.1 to 4 before this Court. The oVponents No.7 to 4 affur receipt of the summons are called not prexnt anil the opponents No.7 to 4 are exparte. The disputant counxl fled eoident afidauit of its Mnnagcr and exantined and maed the documents as Exs.Pl to P14".

upon perusal of the above, it is clear that the respondent No.2

had issued notice and Ex.P10 is marked as postal acknowledgment of notice to petitioner No.1 and Ex.P11 is marked as postal retum cover of petifioner No.2. It is further nohced that the addrcss of petitioner

No.1 and 2 appears to be one and the same and the leamed counsel

4

i I I I I I i

for the petitioners did not disputed the same. Inspite of notice served on petitioner No.l, the petitioners did not choose t,r appear before respondent No.2, thus, the respondent No.2 has passed the award dated 25.08.2014 in A.B.R/C.F No.245 of 201,4. Sincc the petitioners did not pursue the award proceeding diligently, the relief sought in this writ petition is not sustainable.

In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court oo not find any merils in this writ petition and writ petition being deroid of merits is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, s)-rall stand closed.

No order as to costs

SD/-V.KAVITHA ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

[r'u SECTION OFFICER

To,

One CC to^{Sri RajagopallavanTayi, Advocate [OPUC]}

Two CCs to^{Gp for Revenue, High Courtfor the State01 Telangana,at} Hyderabad [OUTI

One CC to^{Sri Maheswara Rao Kuncheam' Advocate [OPUC]} 4 Two CD CoPies

TJ GJP Sr

t

4f

HIGH COURT

DATED:0710212025

ORDER

WP.No.14182 of²⁰¹⁵

1 tlE s e
( ?.:
tk
coJ 2-4- JUl{'1ffi'
I
ov<br>ji,

DISMISSING^{THE WRIT PETITION}

WITHOUT COSTS

1."ddt Xr,'