The Tribunal dismissed a miscellaneous application seeking condonation of delay and restoration of an appeal in a banking recovery matter. The court held the delay was excessive and unsustained by sufficient cause. The respondents did not appear.
Miscellaneous Application No.76/2025 and No.77/2025 dismissed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI
Dated the 13th August, 2026
PRESENT: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. Chandrasekharan CHAIRPERSON
Miscellaneous Application 76/2025
in
AIR (SA):374/2017
(SA 290/2009 on the file of DRT-I, Ernakkulam)
BETWEEN
The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited. Rep. by its authorized officer, Having its office at Harbour view Residency M.G. Road, Ernakulam-15
Also at,
The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited. Rep. by its authorized officer, At No. 30, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001
… Petitioner/Appellant
And
1. P.M. KUNJUBAVA,
S/o Hydrose kutty, Residing at Pallathu Kadavil House, Murpathadam P.O. Aluva,
Ernakulam.
… Respondents
Counsel for Petitioner : Ms. Ambili Menon. P Counsel for R1 : M/s. David Abraham
1
ORDER
that the Petitioner/Appellant has filed the Appeal in AIR (SA) 374/2017 against the order passed in SA 290/2009 by the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Ernakulam, on 01.02.2017. The Appeal was returned for compliance of the defects on 24.07.2017. The Appeal could not be re-presented since the then Advocate had misplaced the file. Mr. K. S. Natrajan, the then Advocate, suffered a stroke on 31.08.2018 and his office did not inform about the pendency of the Appeal. In the meantime, the Authorised Officer of the Bank was transferred and a new Authorised Officer had to take charge. Later, there was a change in the mandate in respect of legal matters, and a new firm took over the pending matter from Mr. K. S. Natrajan.
Meanwhile, the Petitioner/Appellant came to know through the
2
DRAT website that the Appeal in AIR 374/2017 has been dismissed on 01.09.2017. Thereafter, Miscellaneous Application No. 77/2025 is filed seeking restoration of the Appeal along with an Application praying for condonation of delay. Thus, she prayed for condoning the delay. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant produced copies of the medical records to show that Advocate Mr. K. S. Natrajan was suffering from illness and subsequently died.
3
taken, had not been rightly controverted, the Learned Presiding Officer allowed the SA. Though the Appeal was filed in time, it was filed with defects, and therefore, was returned for compliance of the defects. Despite sufficient time given for rectification of the defects, the defects were not cured, and therefore, the matter was listed before the Tribunal, and the then Learned Chairperson dismissed the Appeal for noncompliance of the defects on 01.09.2017. Thereafter, in the year 2025, the Petitioner/Appellant filed these Applications seeking condonation of the delay in re-presenting the Appeal and for restoration of the Appeal. The main reason stated by the Petitioner/Appellant is that its former Counsel suffered a stroke on 31.08.2018 and he succumbed to the illness on 15.12.2020
and that he had not been informed about the pendency of the Appeal. Further, there has been a change in the Authorised Officer and the Counsel.
Natrajan suffered illness. The fact remains that the Appeal was dismissed for non-compliance of the Office Objections on
4
01.09.2017. Between 01.09.2017 to 31.08.2018, what steps had been taken either by the former Counsel or by the Petitioner/Appellant to diligently follow up the Appeal and cure the defects in re-presenting the Appeal in time? Absolutely no steps taken by the Petitioner/Appellant to ascertain what had happened to the Appeal filed after it was returned for compliance of the Office Objections.
[ Justice G. Chandrasekharan] CHAIRPERSON
5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay of 2933 days in representing the appeal can be condoned.
Whether the appellant sufficiently explained the non-response to the notice of dismissal returned for defects.
The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited
P.M. KUNJUBAVA
DR. C.I. GEORGE
G. Chandrasekharan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
