AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
E. Padmanabhan, J.—The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for
the records relating to letter No. 31476/G2/95-1, dated October 5, 1995, on the file of the first respondent and to quash the same and
consequently direct the first respondent to take on file the appeal filed by the petitioner on August 31, 1995, against the award dated May 8,
1995, made in A.O.P. No. 60 of 1990 on the file of the Deputy Registrar of Chits, Salem, to give a personal hearing and dispose of the same on
the merits in accordance with law.
This court ordered notice of motion on March 7, 1996, and the Government advocate was directed to produce a certified copy of the order,
which the petitioner had produced along with the appeal memorandum.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. T. Kokilavani, appearing for the first respondent.
Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 have been given up.
The second respondent-chit fund company instituted arbitration in O.P. No. 60 of 1994 against the petitioner as well as the third and fourth
respondents. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 have remained ex parte in the said arbitration proceedings on the file of the Deputy Registrar of Chits,
Salem. The petitioner mainly contended before the Deputy Registrar of Chits that he was not aware of the chit transactions and he had never
agreed to stand as a surety for the third respondent nor had he signed the chit promissory note besides contending that the documents were forged
and fabricated. The said dispute has been raised by the second respondent-chit fund company and the petitioner contested the same and prayed
for dismissal. Despite objections, the Deputy Registrar of Chits, after conducting the enquiry and after examination of witnesses, negatived the
petitioner''s objections and passed an award on May 8, 1995, directing the petitioner and respondents Nos. 3 and 4 to pay the claim with interest
at 12 per cent. per annum.
As against the award of the Deputy Registrar of Chits, an appeal is provided u/s 70 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982, before the State Government.
The petitioner presented the appeal on August 31, 1995. According to the petitioner, the appeal is within the time, as the time to furnish the
certified copy of the award for the purpose of filing the appeal u/s 70 of the Act has to be excluded.
The petitioner states that the first respondent by the impugned letter dated October 5, 1995, rejected the appeal as belated and the impugned
order reads thus :
I am directed to inform you that as per section 70 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982, any party aggrieved by any order passed by the Registrar or the
nominee u/s 69 of the Act, may within two months from the date of the order or award, appeal to the State Government. But your client''s appeal
against the order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Chits, Salem, in Case No. 60 of 1990 was filed only on August 31, 1995. Hence your client''s
appeal is belated and, therefore, rejected.
Being aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed. Admittedly, the award has been passed on May 8, 1995, by the Deputy Registrar of
Chits, Salem, in A.O.P. No. 60 of 1990, the appeal has been presented on August 31, 1995. The said appeal has been rejected as belated by the
impugned proceedings.
According to learned counsel for the petitioner, after passing of the award on May 8, 1995, the petitioner had applied for a copy of the award
for the purpose of filing the appeal u/s 70 of the Act on May 12, 1995, in C.A. No. 51 of 1995. The certified copy of the award was made ready
and delivered to the petitioner on July 7, 1995. The appeal has been presented on August 31, 1995. As such, according to learned counsel for the
petitioner, the period from May 12, 1995, to July 7, 1995, has to be excluded while reckoning the period of limitation for preferring the appeal. It
is also pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that without the copy of the award, no appeal could be presented and the Deputy Registrar
of Chits who had passed the award had not communicated the full text of the award, but merely passed the award. As such without the full text of
the award, neither an appeal could be preferred nor the petitioner could raise appropriate grounds in a statutory appeal to be preferred u/s 70 of
the Act.
On the other hand, the learned Government advocate contends that there is no provision in the Chit Funds Act and Rules framed thereunder
for exclusion of the said period and there is no provision to condone the delay in filing the appeal as well. The learned Government advocate
contends that the order passed by the first respondent is valid and no interference is called for.
Chapter XII-Disputes and arbitration provides the machinery for adjudication of disputes between the subscriber of a chit and a foreman. Sub-
section (3) of section 64 excludes the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain suits or other proceedings in respect of any dispute referred to in
sub-section (1) of section 64. Section 65 of the Act prescribes the period of limitation with respect to raising of a dispute u/s 64. Section 66
enables the Registrar to settle the dispute himself, or refer it for disposal to a person appointed by him. Section 67 provides the procedure for
settlement of disputes and powers of the Registrar or his nominee. Section 69 provides that when a dispute is referred to arbitration under Chapter
XII, the Registrar or his nominee may, after affording reasonable opportunity to the parties to the dispute, make an award on the dispute as well as
the expenses incurred by the parties in dispute, in connection with the proceedings and the fees and expenses payable to the Registrar or the
nominee. The award so made by the Registrar u/s 69 is final subject to appeal u/s 70 and any decision made u/s 70 by the appellate authority is
final and binding on the arties to the dispute.
Section 70 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982, provides for appeal by the aggrieved party against any order passed by the Registrar or the award of
the Registrar passed u/s 69 and such appeals have to be filed within two months from the date of the order or award.
The Chit Funds Rules, 1984, framed by the Tamil Nadu Government, came into force on April 13, 1984. Chapter VI-Disputes and arbitration
of the Rules relates to the procedure regarding reference of a dispute and decision thereon. Rule 45 provides that a reference in respect of a
dispute u/s 64 shall be made in writing to the Registrar in Form XVII. Rule 49 prescribes the procedure for hearing and decision on the dispute.
The Registrar after affording opportunity and hearing the disputant in the event of contest, pronounce the award in the open court, either at once or
as soon as may be practicable on some future day, of which due notice shall be given to the parties. Rule 49 does not contemplate communication
of the decision or text of the award to the disputant. Sub-rule (6) of rule 49 provides that any party to a dispute any apply and obtain a certified
copy of any order, judgment or award made by the Registrar or his nominee on payment of copying fees. Thus, the copy application has to be
submitted by the parties to the dispute and on payment of the prescribed fees, a certified copy of any order, or judgment is furnished by the
Registrar or his nominee.
Rule 58 provides that an appeal u/s 70 shall be made in writing and shall be either presented in person or sent by registered post to the
appellate authority, namely, the State Government. Sub-rule (2) of rule 58 provides that appeals have to be in the form of a memorandum
accompanied by the fee. Sub-rule (3) of rule 58 provides that every appeal shall specify the names and addresses of the appellant as well as the
respondent, the authority by whom the order appealed against was made; set forth concisely and under distinct heads the grounds of objections to
the order appealed against, with a memorandum of evidence, state precisely the relief which the appellant claims and give the date of the order
appealed against.
It is to be pointed out that section 67 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982, provides that the Registrar, while hearing the dispute u/s 66, shall in
addition to the powers conferred on him under the section, have the same powers as are vested in a civil court while trying a suit under the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908, in respect of the following matters :
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons and examining them on oath;
(b) requiring the discovery and inspection of documents
(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;
(d) requisitioning any public record or copies thereof from any court or office;
(e) issuing, commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents; and
(f) any other matter which may be prescribed.
Thus, the proceedings before the Registrar in terms of Chapter XII of the Act have all the incidents of a civil proceeding. Neither the provisions
of the Chit Funds Act, 1982, nor the Chit Funds Rules, 1984, provided for communication of the award or judgment by the Registrar and the
Registrar is required to pronounce the judgment either immediately after the hearing or on a date fixed by him. For the decision or the award of the
judgment of the Registrar, the disputants have to apply for a certified copy and it is not as if the Registrar either communicates or furnishes a copy
of the award or the judgment, as the case may be.
Without securing the certified copy of the judgment or award, no appeal could be presented nor is it possible for the petitioner to file an appeal
without knowing the contents of the judgment and the details of determination of the Registrar of Chits. The disputant has to obviously apply for a
certified copy of the judgment and award and the same will be furnished by the Registrar on payment of prescribed fees.
Section 65 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982, provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Limitation Act, 1963, but subject to the
specific provision contained in the Chit Funds Act, the period of limitation to raise the dispute referred to the Registrar u/s 64 shall be three years.
Sub-section (2) of section 65 provides that the period of limitation in the case of any dispute other than those referred to in sub-section (1) of
section 65 which are required to be referred to the Registrar u/s 64 shall be regulated by the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, as if the
dispute were a suit and the Registrar, a civil court, Sub-section (3) of section 65 also provides that if the applicant satisfies the Registrar,
notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (2), the Registrar may admit a dispute after the expiry of the period of limitation
specified therein.
There is no provision in the Chit Funds Act, 1982, or in the Chit Funds Rules, 1984, which provides for exclusion of Part III of the Limitation
Act, 1963, and in particular section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Section 12 of the Limitation Act provides for exclusion of time in legal
proceedings. Sub-section (2) of section 12 provides that in computing the period of limitation for an appeal, the day on which the judgment
complained of was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree, sentence or order appealed from or sought to be revised
or reviewed shall be excluded.
This salutary principle adumbrated in section 12 of the Limitation Act has to be applied while calculating the period of limitation prescribed for
an appeal u/s 70 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982. As already pointed out the provisions of the Limitation Act had not been excluded either specifically
or impliedly. It is true that the Registrar is not a court, so also the first respondent is not exercising the power of a court.
The principle of section 12 has to be necessarily applied even though there is no statutory provision in the Chit Funds Act or the Rules made
thereunder prescribing that the time taken for obtaining certified copy of the judgment or award has to be excluded. Without a certified copy of the
award or judgment, no appeal could be filed and without securing a certified copy of the judgment, the disputant may not be in a position to know
as to what had been held against him and what are the points which he has to raise. The disputant cannot be prejudiced or denied the appeal
remedy provided for u/s 70 in a case where the Registrar takes more than 60 days to furnish the certified copy of the judgment or award.
If a particular Registrar takes more than 60 days to furnish a certified copy of the judgment and award, the disputant will be disabled from filing
an appeal. If the view taken by the first respondent is to be accepted, then the disputant cannot even invoke the remedy of appeal. As there is no
provision to communicate an award or judgment, necessarily the time taken by the Registrar from the date of filing of copy application, till the date
of furnishing the certified copy of the award or judgment has to be excluded. Any other view will defeat the very purpose of the appeal provision.
Even assuming that section 12 of the Limitation Act has no application, the principle of Section 12 has to be applied.
In the present case, the award is dated May 8, 1995, and the petitioner had applied for the certified copy of the award and judgment on May
12, 1995. The certified copy was made ready and delivered to him on July 7, 1995, and the appeal has been presented on August 31, 1995. As
such, the time taken by the Registrar from May 12, 1995 to July 7, 1995, has to be excluded. Hence, the appeal preferred by the petitioner is well
within the time prescribed u/s 70 of the Act.
In the circumstances, the impugned order is quashed. The writ petition is allowed and the matter is remitted to the first respondent with a
direction to take up the appeal on file and dispose of the same on the merits in accordance with law. Rule nisi is made absolute. No costs.
Consequently, W.M.P. No. 4303 of 1996 is also closed.