Lade Linga Rao v. M/s.Shriram Chits Pvt. Ltd
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: K. SUJANA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2024-11-29. Lade Linga Rao v. M/s.Shriram Chits Pvt. Ltd. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY THE TWENry NINTH DAY OF NOVEIVIBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO 1610 0F 2024 Petition under Article 227 of lhe Constitution of lndia, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased '1 to set aside the Orders dated . 4. 2024 passed by the Hon'ble Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, in EP No. 660/2022in AA|CFlNo. 486/2019. Between: Lade Linga Rao, S/o. Rajeshwar Rao, Aged about 50 years, Occ. Reserve Sub-lnsp6ctor of Police, CAR Warangil, Rank. RSI-7229, Empy- Code 2104267, Bhadratha No. 60461, R/o. H. No. 2-4-20, F. No. 401' Jewel Towers, Ramanagar, Hanamkonda, Warangal District. ... Petitioner/J DR No. 3 AND 1 M/s. shriram Chits Pvt. Ltd, formerly known at Shriram Chits Ltd-, Warangal-l Branch, Rep. by its Legal Managei E. Raju, S/o. Kattamallu, aged about 34 years, R/o. Warangal District. ..
RespondenUD H R/DisPutant 2 Banoth Dilip, S/o. Thukaram, Aged about 46 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H. No. 201, IOB Bank, Nakkalgutta, Hanamakonda. Business, J Edla Ashok Reddy, S/o. Kommal Reddy, Aged about 52 years, Occ. - R/o. H. No. 1-9-12'1i, Sahakar Nag-ar, Hunter Road, Hanamkonda. (Respondents 2 and 3 are formal parties) ... Respondents/JDR Nos. l&2/Opponents 1&2 Counsel for the Petitione(s):SRl. Lingampelly Ravinder Counsel for the Respondent No1: N. Srikanth Goud The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT - JUSTICE K. SUJANA CIVIL REVISION PE-TITION No. 161O OF 20124 ORDER: This revision petition is filed challenging ther order dated OLO4. 2O24 passed in Ep. No. 66O of 2022 in AA/CF/No a86 of 2Ol9 on the h1e of the principal Junior Civil Jtrdg,:, Warangal, whereunder, the respondent No. l herein llled the said EP. , for realization of Rs.
g,S1,964/- (Rupees tright Lakhs Fifty One Thousand Nine Hundrcd and Sixff Fc,ur Only) which is due under the Award passed by the Deput5. Registrar of Chits/Arbitrator, and for seeking attachment of salary of JDR. No. 3/ petitioner herein under Order XXI Rule 48 of Civil Procedure Code (for ,CpC,) short arrd to award amount with future interest at the rate oI 7g%o per annurl till realization from the salary attachment proceeds. The said EP. , was allowed, issuing salary attachment warrant against the petitioner herein, aggrieved thereby, this revision petition is frled. ,l I&tteElE t! ,4,1 CRP. No. l6l0 OF 2024 2. Heard Sri L. Ravinder, learned counsel for petitioner/JDR No. 3, and Sri N. Srikalth Goud, learned counsel for respondent No. 1/DHR. None appeared for respondent Nos. 2 and 3/JDR Nos. 1 and 2. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the impugned order is contrary to law, facts, and probabilities and contended that respondent No.
l shielded the original borrower and harassed the petitioner by misusing administration of law. He incessantly contended that respondent No. 1 even failed to proceed against the principal borrower, and likewise, he cannot be entitled to proceed against the petitioner as well, without exhausting the necessary steps. He lamented that the Award was passed against the petitioner who was an ex-parte decree, and that the petitioner was not even served with a copy of the Award, indicaling fraud on the part of respondent No. 1. He asserted that the Arbitration Award and recovery certificate were passed on the same day and the same is contrar5r to the Act and Rules, and that the calculation made in the execution petition was false and baseless. He averred that the legal officer of the decree holder company had no locus standi to ClRP.
N"o 16I 0 OF 2024 hle the execution petition, and that apart, the Award passed by the Deputy Registrar of Chits was not maintainable and goes agairrst the provisions of Rules and Regulations under Rule 55 ol the Chit Funds Act. He avowed that the Deputy Registrar ,rf Chits had no right to file the Arbitration Award and Recovery Certihcate directly along with the Execution Petition, eLnd that the Award filed by the foreman of . the decree holder was not transferred from the Deputy Registrar of Chits to the Court. Therefore, prayed this Court 1o allow the revjsion petition, setting aside the impugned order. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. l, vehemently, opposed the submissions made by learned counse frrr petitioner and submitted that there are no illegalities in the impugned order, asserting that there are no merits in this revision petition. He contended that the petitioner is under liability and is entitled for payme nts, as per law.
Therefore, prayed this Court to dismiss the revision petition. 5. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going thror-rgh the material placed on record, it is noted that CRP-No. 1610 OF 2024 the learned counsel for petitioner has primarily contended that instead of prosecuting against a,11 the JDRs, the . respondent No. l selectively chose to attach the salary of JDR,No. 3 alone and that the same is not in accordance with Iaw and in support of the said contention, reliance was placed on the judgment rendered by this Court in Punyamurthula Venkata Viswa Sundara Rao Vs. Margadarsi Chit Fund Private Limitedr wherein, it was observed that laut is utell settled by High Court that a utarded amount ha. s to be claimed proportionatelA all the from judgment debtors, utho ore gudrdntors- But unforfitnotelg the lana is uell settled. otherutise i. e. , that the decree holder has an option to proceed against eitler tte principal debtor or ong of tle guarantors or ogainst all of them. T?
wre need to be no interpretatiue poins, to anriue at the conclusion that tte liobilitg of a suretg is co-erten siue uith that of the principol debtor, o. s section 128 of the Indian Contract Act is clearlg u. Drded. It sags tlwt tlrc liobilitg of the suretg i. s co-ertensiue utith that of tle principal debtor unless it is othenttise prouided bg tLe contract. 'zotz 3 aLo 382 og I I CRP. No. t 6l (l OF 2024 6. Secti(ln 128 of the Indian Contract Act, states that a surety (:r person who guarantees to pay debt if the principal debtor firils to pay) is equaily responsible for the debt as the principal clebtor, unless the contract specifically states otherwise. ln other words, the liability of surety is the same as that of principal debtor, and the surety can be held responsrble for the full amount of the debt if the prlncipal debtor defaults.
However, if the contract between the surety and the creditor specifically limits or modifres the liabrlity of surety, -he e the responsibility of suret5r may be different from that o[ the principal debtor. That being so, it is _ust to note that as per law, the respondent No. I has an op1_ion to proceed agirinst either the principal debtor or any of the guarantors or against all of them and there need to be no interpretati. re pains, to arrive at the conclusion thtLt the liability rrf a suret5r is co,extensive with that of the principal debtor, as s;ection 128 of the Indian Contract Act is clearly worded. Tht:refore, it cal be said that there is no force in the said conten[ion of learned counsel for petitioner. 7. Another ground urged by learned counse:l for petitioner is that as per RuIe 55 of the Chit Funds Rules, \-d - CRP,No.
161O OF 2024 2008 the execution proceedings should be initiated by the party concerned in accordance with the provisions of Section 71 of the Act and that the procedure for hling an execution petition in the civil Court is only through the Registrar who shall forward the application for execution to the proper authority along with a certihcate issued by him under Section 71 of the Act. Section 71 of the Act confers the status of a decree of a civil Court, on the certificate issued by the Registrar. However, there is no force in the said contention as a subsequent judgment was passed by this Court in the case of Madamanchi AniI Kumar Vs. Margadarshi Chit Fund M. Limited2 wherein, it was held that the State Government may, by notification in the Oflrcial Gazette, appoint a Registrar of Chits and as many Additional, Joint, Deputy and Assistant Registrars as may be necessary for the purpose of discharging the duties imposed upon the Registrar by or under this Act.
In other words, the clouds of doubt raised by learned counsel for petitioner with regard to role and discharge of duties of the Deputy Registrar in the case on hand, gets vanished in view of the judgment passed. in Madamanchi Anil 'z 2018 SCC Online Hyd 2210 CRP. No. t610 OF 2024 Kumar isupra 2) case. Therefore, there is no force in this contention as well 8. In view of the above discussion, there are no grounds in this revis;ion petition to set aside the impugned orrler as there are no illegalities or irregularities in the same, warralting interference of this Court. There are no merits in this revisiorr petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. AccorCingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closecl. Sd/- MOHD. ISMAIL AS SISTANT I,REGTS__TRAR //TRUE COPY// \ SEGTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. (with records if any) 2. One CC to SFil.
Lingampelly Ravinder, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. N. Srikanth Goud, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copie,s Yx HIGH COURT I DATED . 29t1 1 t2024 ORDER lr 14 iiiE ,(: CRP. No. 1610 of 2024 o ( q ( 5 o 30 J r i: 2c25 C t I O5' o SrrA " C$€ CIVIL REVISION PI]IITION DISMISSED Gc. Rldo Fr- {w
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.