- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50127 WP No. 30562 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 30562 OF 2011 (GM-CFA) BETWEEN: M/S CHITLOR CHITS PVT LTD NO.B-102, BRIGADE MAJESTIC GANDHINAGAR BRANCH, BANGALORE 560 009 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI C S J NARASIMHALU &PETITIONER (BY SRI. V SUBHASH REDDY (NOC)., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. G.K. SURESH S/O G T KRISHNA REDDY SRI VINAYAKA SILKS, GUNJUUR POST, BANGALORE 560087. 2. G V SATISH REDDY S/O G T VENKATASWAMY REDDY SRI VINAYAKA SILKS, GUNJUR POST, BANGALORE 560087. 3. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CHITS CIRCLE-II, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE. Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50127 WP No. 30562 of 2011 4. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND CHITS, BANGALORE REGION BANGALORE &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.R.ANIL KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. VISHWAS GOWDA G.M., ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR., AGA FOR R3 & R4) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF 4TH RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF ANNEX.E. AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 29.04.2011 PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE 'E' AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 29.04.2011 (Annexure 8E9) passed by respondent No.4. 2. Heard Sri V.Subhash Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.Anil Kumar, learned Counsel for respondent No.1, Sri Vishwas Gowda G.M., learned - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50127 WP No. 30562 of 2011 Counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as to the fact that respondents No.1 and 2, based on Exhibit R1, (Annexure-F in present Writ Petition) arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner has received the amount. However, the aforementioned Exhibit does not clarify as to which account/chit the amount has been credited and therefore, sought for interference of this Court. 4. Per contra, learned counsel Sri R. Anil Kumar appearing for respondent No.1 invited the attention of the Court to Section 65(1)(b) of The Chit Funds Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) and by referring to paragraph-16 of the claim petition filed by the petitioner herein before the competent - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50127 WP No. 30562 of 2011 authority under Section 64 of the Act and submitted that the claim made by the petitioner is barred by limitation and therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, Learned Additional Government Advocate sought to justify the action of respondent No.4. 6. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and taking into consideration the factual aspects on record, paragraph No.16 of the dispute filed by the petitioner under Section 64 of the Act reads as under: <16. The cause of action for the dispute arose on 20-11-1999 when the opponent executed stamped receipt and on the day of all the subsequent installments fell due, till termination of the group on 05-09-2002, on 27-10-2008 when the last payment was made. Hence this dispute is well within the jurisdiction of this Hon9ble Court.= - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50127 WP No. 30562 of 2011 (Emphasis supplied by me) 6. Taking into consideration the fact that as alleged by the petitioner the cause of action arose on 20.11.1999 and the termination of the group was on 05.09.2002 as well as the last payment was made on 27.10.2008 and therefore, as the proceedings have been initiated before the competent authority on 26.12.2008, I am of the view that, the claim made by the petitioner is beyond 3 years as specified under Section 65 of the Act. In this regard, it is relevant to extract the declaration of law made by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.A.No.1927/2001 dated 03.08.2010, wherein paragraph No.12 reads as under: 12. Section 65(1)(b) squarely covers the dispute between a foreman and a subscriber stipulating three years period from the date on which the act or omission with reference to which the dispute arose took place. In the instant case, the default in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50127 WP No. 30562 of 2011 payment of 27th instalment was on 10.12.1988 and the claim filed on 24.8.1992 was beyond the period of three years. Placing reliance upon Shriram Chits and Investments (P) Ltd. v. M. Krishnan, 1999 (1) CTC 238, the learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the First Bench of this Court had taken the view that the limitation period has to be computed from the date of last instalment payable and not only on the defaulted instalment. It was further submitted that the Limitation has to be reckoned from 40th instalment/termination of chit i.e., on 10.9.1990 and not from 10.12.1988 on which date the subscriber has defaulted 27th instalment. In support of the contention, reliance was placed upon paragraph No. 21, which reads as under: <That apart, as already pointed out the chit for a period of sixty months commenced in February 1984, and it terminated only on 10.3.1990. What was sought to be recovered is not only the defaulted instalment but also the future instalment which is payable up to March, 1990. Admittedly, the claim has been presented before the Registrar on 22.7.1991. Reckoned from the last of the chit instalments payable, namely, the 60th instalment, it has to be held that it was well open to the Foreman to wait till the end of the last - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50127 WP No. 30562 of 2011 instalment and thereafter institute the Arbitration proceedings. Reckoned from 60th instalment which fell due on 10.3.1990, the Arbitration Petition having been presented on 22.7.1991 is not barred by limitation.= 7. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the declaration of law referred to above, I am of the opinion that, the claim made by the petitioner is not maintainable as it is barred by time and therefore no interference is called for in this writ petition. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE JT/-