Allowed

M S St Marys Kalmane Arekal Estates v. State Bank of India and Ors.

DRAT16 Jul 2025MISC APPEAL/157/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal allowed appeals filed to concur delay in representing miscellaneous applications. The Tribunal granted permission due to no objection from the bank, directing the Presiding Officer to decide applications on merits within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Allows appeals to condone delay; directs that re-presented applications be decided on merits within four weeks.

M S St Marys Kalmane Arekal Estates versus State Bank of… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated the 16^th Day of July, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN CHAIRPERSON

¶4

MA 156/2013 & MA 157/2013

¶5

(Arising out of MA No. 24 of 2013 & MA No. 25 of 2013 in MA SR.No.4300/ 2010 & 4302/2010 in OA 187/2007 on the file of the DRT-III, Chennai)

¶6

Between

¶7

M/s. St. Mary’s Kalmane & Arekal Estates A registered partnership firm Rep. by Mr. Avinash Prabhu, Partner, Niduvale Post, Via Javali, Chikmaglur District 577 122.

¶8

Appellant

¶9

State Bank of India, Rep. by its Asst. General Manager, Commercial Branch, Walajpet 632 513, Vellore District.

¶10

M/s. Skyline Leather Industries Ltd., Rep. by the Official Liquidator, High Court, Madras.

¶11

Mr. Peter J.R. Pabhu, S/o Late Mr. H.P.P. Rodrigues, No. 80, III Cross, Lavelle Road, Bangalore-1.

¶12

M/s. Skyline Construction Private Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, Having its Corporate Office at No. 80, III Cross, Lavelle Road, Bangalore-1.

¶13

M/s. Apollo Impex Private Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, Having its Corporate Office at No. 80, III Cross, Lavelle Road, Bangalore-1.

¶14

M/s. Industrial Development Bank of India, Rep. by its Asst. General Manager, No.480, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai.35.

¶15

M/s. Federal Bank Limited, Rep. by its Senior Manager, No.62 Anna Salai, Chennai.2. Respondents Counsel for Appellant : M/s. T.K. Bhaskar…. Counsel for Respondent-1 : Mr. M.L. Ganesh Respndents 2 to 7 : Given up

¶16

COMMON ORDER

¶17

These two appeals are filed against the order of dismissal passed in MA24/2013 AND MA25/2013 in MA(SR) 4300/2010 & 4302/2010 in OA 187/2007.

¶18

When the matters are taken up, the learned counsel for the first respondent/Bank submitted that the first respondent/Bank has no objection for allowing both the appeals, which had been filed for condoning the delay in re-presenting the MA(SR)4300/2010 and MA(SR)4302/2010 leaving open all the issues to be raised by both the parties before he Tribunal in the condone delay petition in MA(SR)4300/2010 and review application in MA(SR) 4302/2010.

¶19

This Tribunal has extensively heard the learned counsel for the appellant on the earlier hearing on 23/06/2025 . In view of the stand taken by the learned counsel for the first respondent/Bank, this Tribunal allows both the appeals.

¶20

Therefore, the condone delay petitions in re-resenting the MA(SR) 4300/2010 & 4302/2010 in MA No.24/2013 and MA No.25/2013 respectively are allowed and the applications in MA(SR)4300/2010 and MA(SR)4302/2010 shall be decided by the learned Presiding Officer on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶21

In the result, these appeals in MA 156/2013 and MA157/2013 are

¶22

allowed.

¶23

Parties shall bear their own costs. Pending IAs., if any, stand closed.

¶24

(Dictated to steno(RA), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this 16^th day of July 2025)

¶25

Sd/- (JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN) CHAIRPERSON

M S St Marys Kalmane Arekal Estates v. State Bank of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M S St Marys Kalmane Arekal Estates v. State Bank of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sixth Sense Robotics and Automations Pvt. Limited versus Bank of Baroda

Indian Bank versus Zubaida Begum a

State Bank of India versus The Royal Bank of Scotland N v and Ors.

M S St Marys Kalmane Arekal Estates versus State Bank of India and Ors.

Sri Laxmi Flour Mills Company versus South Indian Bank

Shine Karunakaran Son of Karunakaran versus Repco Home Finance Limited Rep by its Authorised officer