AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
E. Padmanabhan, J.—In W.P. No.2049 of 2002, the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the
records of the first respondent herein in Letter No.26144/G/2000-1 dated 13.12.2000 and quash the same.
In W.P. No.2050 of 2002, the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the first
respondent herein in Letter No.26146/G/2000-1 dated 5.12.2000 and quash the same.
In W.P. No.2051 of 2002, the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the first
respondent herein in Letter No.26148/G/2000 dated 12.12.2000 and quash the same.
In W.P. No.2052 of 2002, the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the first
respondent herein in Letter No.26147/G/2000 dated 13.12.2000 and quash the same.
In W.P. No.2053 of 2002, the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the first
respondent herein in Letter No.26145/G/2000-1 dated 13.12.2000 and quash the same.
All the above five writ petitions could be taken up together and disposed of since the facts are identical and the contentions advanced are also
identical. It is sufficient to refer to the facts in one of the writ petitions.
The 3rd respondent is a Chit Fund in which the writ petitioner is a subscriber. According to the 3rd respondent, the petitioner committed default
in payment of instalment and the 3rd respondent initiated arbitration case against the petitioner on the file of the 2nd respondent. The said
arbitration proceedings was resisted by the petitioner.
The arbitration proceedings came to be posted to 7.2.2000 and the petitioner claims that he had appeared before the 2nd respondent around
3.00 p.m., besides he was ready to make his submissions along with relevant documents. When the petitioner reached the office of the 2nd
respondent, he was informed that he has been set exparte. The petitioner requested the 2nd respondent to receive the documents. On the said
petition an endorsement was made by the 2nd respondent to the fact that the petitioner has been set exparte. The petitioner was not aware of the
order passed in the arbitration proceedings by the 2nd respondent nor he has been communicated with the copy of the award. The petitioner made
enquiries and came to know only on 28.9.2000 that the 2nd respondent has passed an exparte order for recovery of the money claimed by the
3rd respondent. The petitioner applied for certified copy of the same, which was furnished on 16.10.2000. Thereafter, he petitioner preferred an
appeal before the first respondent. According to the petitioner, the appeal is well within time. Though the appeal is well within time, however, by
abundant caution, he filed an application to condone the delay. The first respondent by order dated 13.12.2000 dismissed the appeal as belated.
Hence, the present writ petition.
Heard Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr.Kumaresh Babu, learned Government Advocate appearing for
respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.T.P.Manoharan, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent.
The point that arises for consideration in these writ petitions is :-
Whether the appeal preferred by the petitioner is barred by limitation ?
It is specifically contended that the passing of the award has not been informed or intimated to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent nor an
award copy had been communicated to the petitioner and the petitioner came to know about the passing of the award only on 16.10.2000.
Thereafter, the petitioner applied for certified copy and the same has been furnished and appeal has been preferred well in time.
As seen from the impugned order, the award has been passed on 7.2.2000, only on 24.11.2000 the petitioner preferred the appeal and as no
valid reasons have been set out in the application to condone the delay and the appeal having been filed belatedly, the first respondent had rejected
the appeal as belated.
Mr.Sundaresan, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that practically there is no delay since neither the passing of the award has been
intimated or informed or communicated nor the award copy has been communicated to the petitioners. From the date of knowledge of the passing
of the award, the petitioner applied for certified copy and without delay the appeal has been preferred.
It is the case of the petitioner that he came to know about the passing of the award only on 28.9.2000 and immediately thereof he has applied
for certified copy of the award, which was furnished on 16.10.2000 and the appeal was presented on 24.11.2000. It is also contended that neither
the passing of the award has been intimated nor the copy of the award has been communicated to the petitioner and, therefore, from the date of
knowledge of passing of the award, the petitioner moved the appellate authority, which appeal is well within time. It is specifically averred that the
copy of the award had not been communicated nor intimation has been given to the petitioner. Hence, it is contended that appeal, if any, could be
preferred within sixty days from the date of knowledge. Reckoning from the date of knowledge, the appeal has been preferred within time.
The main and substantial controversy being, whether the petitioner was intimated of the passing of the award or whether the award copy has
been communicated to the petitioner. If the award copy has been communicated to the petitioner, then from the said date, limitation period of sixty
days could be calculated. Though Section 70 provides that an appeal shall be preferred within two months from the date of the order or the award,
which means two months from the date of either intimation or passing of the award or communication of a copy of the award. If the passing of the
award has not been intimated or made known, or copy of the award is not communicated, then it cannot be stated that the limitation starts from the
date of passing of the award. It is fundamental that limitation, if any, starts from the date on which the petitioner is intimated of the passing of the
award or communication of the award.
In this case, the petitioner has been set exparte and, thereafter, as to what had happened or as to when the award has been passed had not
been intimated to the petitioner nor the copy of the award has been communicated to the petitioner. It is nobody''s case that the copy of the award
has been communicated to the petitioner. Therefore, the second contingency alone remains to be considered.
As regards the factual aspect as to whether the petitioner was intimated of the passing of the award, the learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that the petitioner was not intimated of the passing of the award, but he came to know only on 28.9.2000 about the exparte
award/order and prior to 28.9.2000 he has no knowledge or intimation of the passing of the award.
Per contra, Mr.T.P.Manoharan, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent contended that even on the date when the petitioner
was set exparte, he was appraised of the award passed and an acknowledgement has been taken from the petitioner. This is being denied by the
counsel for the petitioner. Hence, this Court called upon the Government Advocate to produce the original files from the 2nd respondent in all the
writ petitions. The original files in all the cases were produced before the Court by the learned Government Advocate.
As seen from the original file, the petitioner had taken adjournments and the proceedings came to be posted on 7.2.2000. On 7.2.2000, the
petitioner submitted a letter, which reads thus :-
As seen from the letter, the petitioner had requested a week''s time to produce the bank certificate and also the petitioner had appeared before
the Arbitrator at around 4.45 p.m. Identical letters have been submitted in all the remaining proceedings by the respective petitioners. On
7.2.2000, the 2nd respondent made the following endorsement on the said letter, which reads thus :-
Beneath the above endorsement, the petitioner had made an endorsement, which reads thus :-
The above is being relied upon by Mr.T.P.Manoharan that there has been a communication of the award. The very endorsement made by the
2nd respondent will not support the case of the 3rd respondent, but it will definitely supports the writ petitioner. It is stated that on 7.2.2000
enquiry came to be posted and only around 4.45 p.m. the petitioner could reach the office of the Arbitrator and submit the above representation.
The endorsement is to the effect that since the petitioner had not appeared in time on 7.2.2000, he has been set exparte and he is intimated that
orders will be passed.
Therefore, it is clear that it is not as if on 7.2.2000 itself an exparte award has been passed. It should not be forgotten that at the same time all
the five claims came to be taken up and it is not possible for the 2nd respondent also to have passed all the awards, which runs to nearly four
pages in each case. Though in the notes paper an endorsement has been made to the effect that the award has been passed on 7.2.2000, and the
3rd respondent had taken note of the passing of the award on 7.2.2000 itself, there has been no intimation of the passing of the award to the writ
petitioner. What was intimated to the petitioner being that he has been set exparte and that award will be passed, which would mean that award
will be communicated or passing of the award or details of the award will be communicated to the petitioner. The endorsement extracted above
would show that on 7.2.2000 when the petitioner appeared and submitted a letter, he was merely intimated that he has been set exparte and that
and that orders will be passed later.
After 7.2.2000 there has been no intimation or passing of the award nor a copy of the award has been communicated. The endorsement on
7.2.2000 merely put the petitioner on notice of his being set exparte and nothing more. In other words the passing of the award has not been
intimated to the petitioner. There is no other endorsement or despatch note to show that intimation of passing of the award has been given by the
2nd respondent to the petitioner. Therefore, in the absence of any material to show that the petitioner had been intimated of the passing of the
award, there is no reason at all to disbelieve the petitioner that he came to know about the passing of the award only on 28.9.2000. Reckoned
from 28.9.2000 it is clear that the petitioner has filed the appeal within time. At any rate, reckoned from the date of communication also, the time
taken to get the certified copy requires to be excluded and reckoned and on that basis, the appeal is definitely within time.
Mr.Manoharan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents point out that the writ petitioners are not entitled to any relief as they are guilty
of latches. According to Mr.Manoharan, the petitioners have approached this Court after a long delay of nearly a year and, therefore, they are not
entitled to any relief. In this respect Mr.Manoharan relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar and Others Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Others, . The contention advanced by the counsel for the petitioner is not only attractive, but also requires
examination.
It is true there is some delay. However, the writ petitions have been admitted and it is pending on the file of this Court. At this stage, if the writ
petitions are to be dismissed as belated, it will work hardship. That apart the writ petitioner should have remedy of one appeal as the award has
been passed exparte by the Arbitrator. Hence, it is fundamental that the petitioner should be given sufficient opportunity. Though there is some
delay, this Court is not inclined to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of latches on the facts of the case, since the appeal has not been disposed
of on merits, but rejected on the ground that it is barred by limitation. As already discussed above, the petitioners are entitled to maintain the
appeal as the appeals are not barred.
In the circumstances, the impugned communication of the first respondent in his letter No.26144/G/2000-1 dated 13.12.2000 is quashed. All
the writ petitions are allowed and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent for consideration of the appeal on merits and according to law.
The facts are identical in all the remaining four writ petitions and in the said writ petitions also, the respective impugned communication is
quashed and the first respondent is directed to take up the appeal on file and dispose of the same on merits and according to law. No costs.
Consequently, connected W.P.M.P.s are closed.
Before parting with the case, this Court deems it essential to issue directions as number of identical petitions are being filed since there is no
rule to communicate the award nor there is a rule, which provides for intimation of passing of the award. Hence, every time there is a controversy,
the parties moved this Court. To avoid such circumstances, this Court directs the State Government to issue the following directions to all the
Registrar of Chits who act as Arbitrators :-
i) To intimate the date on which the award is passed ;
ii) To communicate the copy of the award with necessary endorsements as to date of award, date of despatch by Registered Post
Acknowledgement Due ; and
iii) Towards expenses incurred in this respect, the claimant before the Arbitrator may be required to provide the cost in advance for forwarding the
copy of the award by Registered Post Acknowledgement Due and the said cost could be included in the award for being reimbursed by the
judgment debtors.
Such a course alone avoid circumstances of the present nature.