AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.—In all these writ petitions a common ground arises for consideration and hence taken up together.
The respective writ petitioners in these writ petitions are subscribers of chits with the first respondent, which is a chit company. According to the
1st respondent/chit company, amounts were due from the petitioners towards chit transaction. The 1st respondent filed claim petition before the
2nd respondent. Registrar of Chits, Madras claiming certain amounts from the respective writ petitioners herein. As against the said claim, the writ
petitioners herein claim setoff and adjustment of amounts allegedly due from the foreman to the respective petitioners. The amounts claimed to be
set off were in relation to certain other transactions with reference to commission payable for distribution of films. Therefore, the writ petitioners
sought for setoff of the said amounts before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent agreed with the claim of the petitioners for setoff and
directed the adjustment of the amounts allegedly due to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st respondent filed appeal before the
Government/3rd respondent. The third respondent upheld the contentions of the 1st respondent and held that the claim for setoff as made by the
petitioner cannot be acceded to considering that the claim did not relate to the chit transactions. With the result, in respect of the three claim
petitions which were filed by the 1 st respondent, three separate orders were passed in the appeal by the Government/3rd respondent separately in
each of the claim petitions. Hence, the above three writ petitions.
The only question which arises for consideration in these writ petitions is as to whether the amounts due between the parties not in respect of the
chit transactions could be the subject matter of setoff as provided under Rule 34 of Chit Funds Act.
Mr. N.K. Ramaswamy, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that both the Chit Funds Act, 1982 and the Rules made thereunder do not
make any distinction between the money due on the chit transaction and other amounts due as between the parties to the chit transaction. The
learned Counsel would further referred to Section 25 of the Chit Funds Act dealing with the liability of the foreman to the subscribers. While Sub-
section 2 deals with the liability of the foreman to the subscribers in respect of obligations arising out of chit, Subsection 1 does not specifically
make any such restricted meaning to the expression ""liability"" to the subscribers. On the other hand, Sub-section (1) merely states that every
foreman shall be liable to account to the subscribers for the amount due to them. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel, Section 25(1)
entitles the subscribers to recover any amount due from the foreman and the claim need not be restricted to only the amount due under the chit. He
also referred to Rule 34 which permits setoff. The rule merely states that when any money-is due from the foreman to a subscriber and also from
the subscriber to the foreman, the subscriber shall be allowed the benefit of a setoff. The learned Counsel also refers to form XII of the said rule
which states that any amount due to the foreman from any subscriber on account of chit shall be a first charge on the subscriptions paid by such
subscriber.
On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, the attempt on the part of the learned Counsel for petitioner is that in claiming setoff there are no
restrictions either under the Act or in the Rules only to the amount due under the chit transactions. Therefore, the Registrar, according to the
Counsel for the petitioner, has rightly allowed the claim of setoff as made by the petitioner. In the impugned order, the Governments has, without
any justification set aside the order of the Registrar.
Per contra, Mr. R. Krishnaswamy, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent submits that the scope of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 cannot
extend to transactions outside the scope of the Chit transactions. He referred to the definition of subscriber u/s 2(r) which clearly defines the
expression as including a person, who holds a fraction of ticket and also a transferee of a ticket or fraction thereof by assignment in writing or by
operation of law. He also referred to Section 12 of the Act which specifically prohibits the Chit Companies from transacting any other business
without the specific permission of the State Government. In the light of such strict application of the provisions of the Act, the interpretation which
was sought to be placed by the petitioner is not at all warranted. Reference is also made to Section 14 which imposes restriction on the utilisation
of the funds. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be heard to say that money was due to him from the foreman/chit company in respect of other
transactions. The learned Counsel would further submit that if the contention of the petitioner is to be accepted, then it would amount to vesting
powers on the Registrar to adjudicate claims beyond the scope of the Chits Act. The Cinema Company from whom the amounts are claimed by
the petitioners is not the foreman. The powers and liabilities of the foreman would be restricted only to the chit transaction and therefore the
contentions of the petitioner cannot be accepted.
I have considered the submissions of both sides and I am inclined to agree with the contentions raised on behalf of the 1st respondent and also
to uphold the impugned orders passed by the Government.
The very scope and object of the Act 40 of 1982 is only to regulate the chit funds and for matters connected therewith. The very definition of
the word ""subscriber"" will qualify only a person who holds a ticket or a transferee of ticket by assignment in writing or by operation of law. This
would mean that the liability of a subscriber could be restricted only to the amounts due under the ticket and nothing else. The word ""ticket"" u/s
2(b) means the share of the subscriber in the chit. Therefore, the rights and liabilities of the subscriber or foreman or the Chit Company cannot go
beyond the amounts referable to chit transaction.
As contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent if the Registrar could order setoff in respect of other transactions, it would
amount to vesting on him the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts. Even under the Code of Civil Procedure, whenever the Civil Court is confronted with
a claim for setoff, such a claim has to be tried as a regular suit. A claim for setoff could be allowed only after the Court is convinced about the
liability of the plaintiff in respect of setoff claimed by the defendant. Certainly, the Registrar is not vested with such powers to deal with other
disputes which do not fall within the scope of the chit transaction.
Though the Counsel for the petitioner referred to Rule 34 of the Act, it has to be considered only in the light of the scope of the Act. The Act
itself is restricted only to chit transactions and the rules framed thereunder cannot travel beyond the scope of the Act itself, Reference to Section 25
of the Act and the interpretation of the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be sustained. The expression ""obligations arising out of chit"" as
occurring in Section 25(2) came to be made considering that the said sub-section dealt with a case where the foreman was a firm or other
association of individuals. It is only in the said background, it was necessary to refer to the obligations arising out of the chit under Sub-section 2.
Under Sub-section (1) of Section 25, there was no such necessity since the section deals only with an individual foreman and a subscriber.
Therefore, there was no necessity to specifically refer to obligations arising only out of the chit. Therefore, the mere difference in the wordings of
the two sub-sections cannot lead to widening the very scope of the Act.
Therefore, I am unable to read from any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules, which would entitle any of the authorities under the Act to go
beyond the chit transaction, and to investigate the liability of the foreman with reference to transactions which have nothing to do with the chit. Such
an interpretation would be totally violative of the provisions of the Act and the Rules.
As I am unable to agree with the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any error in the order passed by the
Government in three appeals filed by the first respondent. The petitioner has not raised any other ground questioning the order passed by the
Government in the appeals on the merits of each case.
With result, there are no merits in the above writ petitions and the petitions are dismissed. No costs. Connected WMPs are also closed.