Indian Bank v. Mr M Banumoorthy
Case brief
What is this about?
The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal dismissed an application for condoning a 1189-day delay in filing an appeal arising from an Interpleader Application. The Court held that procedural explanations and administrative delays did not justify the huge lapse in time.
What did the court decide?
IA 223/2021 is dismissed; consequently, the appeal AIR (SA) 68/2020 is rejected.
What the court decided
IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI
Dated the 21st Day of April, 2026
PRESENT: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. Chandrasekharan CHAIRPERSON
IA 223/2021 (Delay) In AIR (SA) 68 of 2020 (Arising out of SA 453/ 2016 on the file of DRT-III, Chennai)
Between
Indian Bank, Rep. by Senior Manager: Jitendra Pradhan, ARM Branch, No.55 Ethiraj Salai, Chennai 600 008 . ..…Appellant
And
- Banumoorthy, S/o S. Maqsilamani, No. 27/11 Pilliyar Koil Lane, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.
- M/s. Blu Jagers Estates Ltd., Office at No. 9 Ground Floor, II Street, Dr. Thirumurthy Nagar, Chennai 600 018.
- M/s. Blue Jagers Properties, Head Office at : 5-D Century Plaza, 5th Floor, Opp. A.G’s Office, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 018.
- Mr. C.N. Embar,
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the explanation of procedural delay of 1189 days by the appellant is sufficient to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
Whether the Interpleader Application filed by a third-party purchaser provides a valid ground for refusing to consider the merits of the appeal despite condoning delay.
Whether the reasons for delay attributed to internal bank procedures can justify a 1189-day lapse when the appellant was already a party to the proceedings.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Indian Bank
- respondent
Banumoorthy
- respondent
M/s. Blu Jagers Estates Ltd.
- respondent
M/s. Blue Jagers Properties
- respondent
C.N. Embar
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- DRAT
- Decided on
- · April
- CNR
- 331090000682020
- Topic
- Banking and Recovery
All orders in this case
18 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court