The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging a salary attachment warrant, holding that a Deputy Registrar appointed under Section 61(1) of the Chit Funds Act can issue a recovery certificate deemed to be a civil court decree.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that a recovery certificate issued by a Deputy Registrar under the Chit Funds Act can be treated as a civil court decree. Justice Ravi Cheemalapati delivered the ruling while dismissing Civil Revision Petition No.3456 of 2025 filed by Kambala Venkata Rama Rao.
Salary Attachment Warrant Challenged
The petitioner challenged a salary attachment warrant issued on October 29, 2025. The warrant came from execution proceedings in Dispute No.41 of 2018.
Earlier, Kapil Chit Kosta PT Ltd., Arundelpet Branch, Guntur, had filed the dispute under Section 64 of the Chit Funds Act. The company sought recovery of ₹6,09,555.
Petitioner Questioned Deputy Registrar’s Power
The petitioner argued that only the Registrar could issue a recovery certificate under Section 71 of the Chit Funds Act and Rule 55 of the Andhra Pradesh Chit Fund Rules, 2008.
However, the Deputy Registrar of Chits, Guntur issued the certificate. Therefore, the petitioner claimed the execution proceedings and salary attachment were invalid.
Court Clarified Registrar Definition
The High Court rejected the argument after examining Sections 2(o), 61, 66 and 71 of the Chit Funds Act together.
Importantly, the Court noted that Section 2(o) defines “Registrar” to include an Additional, Joint, Deputy or Assistant Registrar appointed under Section 61. As a result, the Court held that a Deputy Registrar appointed under Section 61 can issue a recovery certificate under Section 71(a).
Recovery Certificate Treated As Civil Court Decree
The Court relied on the ruling in Madamanchi Anil Kumar v. Margadarshi Chit Fund Pvt. Limited.
Further, the Court clarified that a Deputy Registrar exercising powers under Section 61(1) is different from a nominee appointed only to decide disputes under Section 66. Accordingly, the Court held that the recovery certificate issued by the Deputy Registrar was valid and executable as a civil court decree.
Surety Liability Is Immediate
The High Court also rejected the petitioner’s argument that the award-holder should first proceed against the principal debtor or prized subscriber.
Instead, the Court relied on Supreme Court judgments, including State Bank of India v. Saksaria Sugar Mills Limited. The Court held that a surety’s liability is immediate. Therefore, a creditor does not need to exhaust remedies against the principal debtor before proceeding against the surety.
Petition Dismissed
Finally, the Andhra Pradesh High Court found no merit in the case and dismissed the civil revision petition. The Court also closed pending miscellaneous petitions and made no order as to costs.
