Allowed

State Bank of India v. First Choice Forex and Service Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

DRAT30 Jan 2025MISC APPEAL/55/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal against the dismissal of an application for restoration of an Original Application filed for recovery. The Tribunal set aside the lower court's order, accepting the appellant's explanation that delay was caused by the Sub-Registrar's office failing to release the assignment agreement, and directed the lower court to number and dispose of the restoration ap

What did the court decide?

The order of the Presiding Officer, DRT-1, Chennai in MA 26/2018 in OA 68/2015 is set aside. The Presiding Officer is directed to number the restoration application and dispose of it in the manner kno

State Bank of India versus First Choice Forex and Service… — Banking and Recovery | DRAT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated the 30^th day of January, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN

¶4

CHAIRPERSON

¶5

MA 55/2019

¶6

(Arising out of MA 26/2018 in OA 68/2015 on the file of DRT - I, Chennai)

¶7

Between

¶8

State Bank of India, SME siruthozhil Branch, Chennai, Now migrated to SARB, Rep. by its Chief Manager, KRM Tower, V Floor, No.1, Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031 …..Appellant

¶9

And

¶10

1. M/s. First Choice Forex and Service Pvt Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, SF-2 High Towers, 40A, Nungambakam High Road, Nungambakam Chennai - 34

¶11

2. Mr.A.S.Chandrasekaran, S/o. Mr.A.P.Seetharaman, G3, Golden Emerald Flats, No.4, Muthukumaran Street, Venkateswara Nagar, Ambattur Chennai – 600 053

¶12

3. Mr.P.Srikrishnan, S/o Mr.K.Parthasarathy, Flat No.22, 2^nd Floor, Block No.v, Maansarovar Rajaa Apartments, No.11 A. Arcot Road, Lakshmi Nagar. Porur, Chennai – 600 116

¶13

¶14

4. Mrs.Kasthuri,

¶15

W/o. Mr.M.C.Jothi, Door No.8, Jothi Nagar, 5^th Cross Street, Thiruvottiyur, Chennai – 600 019

¶16

5. Mrs.R.Suganthi, W/o. Late Mr. V.Rajendran

¶17

6. Mr. R.Ravi Kumar, S/o. Late Mr.V.Rajendran

¶18

7. Mr.R.Sooriyakumar, S/o. Late Mr. V.Rajendran

¶19

5 to 7 are residing at: Plot No.127, Door No.107, 86^th Street, Sivalingapuram, K.K.Nagar, Chennai – 600 078 …..Respondents

¶20

Counsel for Appellant	: Mr. M.L.Ganesh
Counsel for R1, R2	: None
Counsel for R3	: Mr. P.Murugan
Counsel for R4	: Mr.P.V.Ramachandran

¶21

R5 to R7 are given up

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This appeal is filed under Section 20 of RDDB & FI Act, challenging the order passed in MA 26/2018 in OA 68/2015. The said MA 26/2018 was filed for condoning the delay of 398 days in filing the petition for restoration of OA 68/2015, which was dismissed for default and non-prosecution on 01.06.2017.

¶24

It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that the aforesaid OA was filed for recovery of sum of Rs.4,21,56,936/- from defendants. The bank filed proof affidavit along with the documents to establish its claim. While so, on 20.04.2017, the loan account was assigned in favour of Reliance Asset

¶25

¶26

Reconstruction Company Limited. Pursuant to that, the assignment agreement was executed between the appellant and the said ARC. The said assignment agreement could not be obtained from the SRO, Triplicane due to various objections and therefore the same was not released by the concerned SRO. Hence, the substitution application could not be filed in the OA immediately. The Assignment agreement was released by the concerned SRO vide Doc. No.857/2018, although it was registered on 02.08.2017. However, the Tribunal dismissed the OA on 01.06.2017 for non-prosecution.

¶27

It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that the Registry will entertain the substitution application only if the registered Assignment agreement is produced and for the reason aforesaid, the registered Assignment agreement could not be produced and the OA came to be dismissed. Without considering this aspect, the Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT – 1, Chennai, dismissed the application filed to condone the 398 days delay in filing the restoration application. It is the further submission of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that during the pendency of this appeal, there was a settlement reached between the R3 and the appellant bank, and hence the bank is not pressing the claim against R3.

¶28

Despite giving sufficient opportunities, there is no representation for R1, R2 and R4. Ld. Counsel for appellant argued the matter on 29.11.2024 and it was adjourned for the arguments of R3 and R4. There was no representation for R1 and R2 on 29.11.2024. On 31.12.2024, there was no representation for R1, R2 and R4 and therefore this matter was ordered to be listed today as last chance for making submissions of the aforesaid respondents, failing which the appeal would be disposed on the basis of the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for appellant and R3. Today also there is no representation for R1, R2 and R4.

¶29

¶30

Considered the rival submissions of Ld. Counsels appearing for appellant and R3.

¶31

As detailedly extracted above, the reason for not filing the restoration application in time was the delay in getting the registered assignment agreement. Appellant cannot be held responsible for the delay caused by the Sub-Registrar’s Office. This Tribunal finds that the reasons stated for the delay in filing the restoration application is just and appropriate and can be accepted. In this view of the matter, the order of the Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT – 1, Chennai, in MA 26/2018 in OA 68/2015 is hereby set aside and Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT – 1, Chennai, is directed to number the restoration application and dispose it in the manner known to law.

¶32

Accordingly, this appeal MA 55/2019 is disposed.

¶33

Parties are directed to bear their own costs. Pending IAs, if any, stand closed.

¶34

[Dictated to Steno (DD), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this 30^th January , 2025]

¶35

Sd/- (JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN) CHAIRPERSON

¶36

State Bank of India v. First Choice Forex and Service Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. First Choice Forex and Service Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mrs Selvi versus Messers Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

The Authorised Officer Aptus Value Hosuing Finance India Ltd. versus Mrs Vedhanayagi v

Noel Anthuvan versus Repco Home finance Limited

Yenfor Ventures Pvt. Ltd. versus State Bank of India

H S Savitri versus Union Bank of India

S Francis Arockia Marian versus The Sub Collector Tuticorin and Ors.