- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33400 WP No. 20415 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 20415 OF 2025 (GM-CFA) BETWEEN: SMT PUSHPALATHA K V DIO VENKATACHALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER, GRADE-1. GOVT HIGH SCHOOL, AVERAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST KAILANCHA HOBLI RAMANAGARA TQ AND DI-562159. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMESH KUMAR R V.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES BENGALURU REGION, MALLESHWARA, BENGALURU-560003. 2. THE ASST REGISTRAR OF CHITS, 3RD ZONE, SAHAKARA SOUDHA, MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU 56004. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33400 WP No. 20415 of 2025 3. M/S MARGADARHSI CHITS (K) PVT LTD, 801 AND 802, SOUTH BLOCK, MANIPAL CENTER, DICKENSON ROAD, BENGALURU 560002. (BANASHANKARI BRANCH). 4. SRI. MAHALINGAIAH.H.P, S/O PUTTALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, ASST MASTER, GOVT SCHOOL, AVERAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, RAMANAGARA TQ AND DT.-562159. 5. SMT SAVITHRAMMA K.R, S/O GOVINDRAJU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, GOVT LOWER PRIMARY SCHOOL, CHITRALINGADODDI VILLAGE, MADANAYAKANAHALLI, MADDUR TQ, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571431. 6. SN. SURESH AR S/O RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. R/AT NO. 2240 C/O RAVI, IJOOR KUVEMPU NAGARA RAMANAGARA TOWN - 562 159. 7. SRI CHANDRASHEKAR S S/O SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT YEARS, R/AT NO 1157, 1ST FLOOR, B.M.ROAD, VINAYAKA NAGARA, RAMANAGARA TOWN - 562159. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33400 WP No. 20415 of 2025 8. SRI. NARASHIMARAJU, S/O. NARASHIMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT 33, ANAJAVADI VILLAGE, CHIKKAMUDAVADI POST, KASABA HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TQ AND DT-562159. 9. SMT SAROJAMMA.K, W/O VENKATACHALAIAH, R/AT KOTAHALLI VILLAGE, AVEREHALLI POST, KAILANCHA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TQ AND DT-562159. 10. SRI. RAVIKUMAR, S/O NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT KAYISOPPINA STREET, BEHIND SREE RAMA TALKIES, RAMANAGARA TQ AND DT - 562159. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. P.P JAYAKUMAR,ADVOCATE FOR C/R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTIUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19/02/2025, PASSED IN CHIT APPEAL NO JRB.CHITS/APPEAL/25/2023-24, BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT THEREBY MODIFYING THE IMPUGNED AWARD 23/10/2019, PASSED IN DISPUTE NO.DRB- 3/TZ/CFS/20/2017-18, BY THE 2 RESPONDENT, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33400 WP No. 20415 of 2025 HOLDING THE PETITIONER LIABLE TO PAY INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 16PERCENT ONLY BEING THE PRINCIPAL SUM OF RS 9,59,720/- ONLY ALONG WITH COSTS OF RS 26,361/- UNTIL REALIZATION AT ANNEXURES -A AND B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The question for consideration is within a narrow canvass, and that is whether this Court must intervene with the impugned orders both the original order [an award] and the order in appeal under Section 70 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982. The petitioner does not dispute that she has participated in a chit operated by the third respondent but is aggrieved by the award dated 23.10.2019 [Annexure- B] and the dismissal of her appeal by the next impugned order dated 19.02.2025 [Annexure-A]. The award dated 23.10.2019 is an ex-parte award, and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33400 WP No. 20415 of 2025 the petitioner’s case is that she could not bonafide participate in such proceedings and the appellate authority has not considered her case as against she being placed ex parte. 2. Sri. Ramesh Kumar R.V., the learned counsel for the petitioner, contending that the petitioner is a Teacher with a Government school and she is not served with the notice at the place of her work, submits that the petitioner as against a sum of Rs.9,59,720/- has paid over Rs.11,00,000/- but the amounts so credited have not been appropriately accounted for. Sri Ramesh Kumar R.V. submits that the appellate authority has not even examined whether the petitioner was duly served in the arbitral proceedings. 3. As against these assertions, Sri. P. P. Jayakumar, the learned counsel for the third respondent, placing on record a memo of calculation that is made over during the hearing, submits that - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33400 WP No. 20415 of 2025 the petitioner is due in a sum of Rs.16,54,093/- as of today and that this amount includes the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- deposited during the pendency of the appeal proceedings. The learned counsel does not dispute that the third respondent has initiated execution proceedings to recover the amounts due in terms of the award. 4. The petitioner is placed ex parte in the original proceedings is not disputed, and it cannot also be disputed that despite the petitioner setting up certain circumstances to show cause against she being placed ex parte, the appellate authority has not considered the same except for recording that not only the petitioner but the other answering respondents have also been placed ex parte. The other answering respondents are Guarantors. 5. This Court is of the considered view that the appellate authority should have examine whether the petitioner was duly served, and whether there - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33400 WP No. 20415 of 2025 were any bona fides in she contending that the notice is addressed to her place of work and not to her residential address and therefore she was not truly served. Further, this Court must intervene only to enable complete adjudication but on terms, and when so considered, this Court is of the view that both the impugned orders must be quashed and the original proceedings restored but with the petitioner being put on reasonable terms. In the light of the afore, the following: ORDER [A] The petition is allowed in-part, and the award dated 23.10.2019 in DISPUTE NO.DRB-3/TZ/CFS/20/2017-18 and the order dated 19.02.2025 in Appeal No.JRB.Chits/Appeal/25/2023-24 are quashed restoring the original proceedings for reconsideration with liberty to the respondent to file - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33400 WP No. 20415 of 2025 objections within thirty [30] days of the first appearance. [B] The petitioner on the first date of appearance shall deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- subject to the outcome in the original proceedings. The petitioner shall, without further notice, appear in the original proceeding on 27.10.2025. [C] It is needless to observe that if there is any failure to deposit Rs.5,00,000/- as now stipulated that in itself shall be considered a default for just orders. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA ct:sr