Allowed

City Union Bank v. M s Pon Lakshmi Traders

DRT23 Nov 2022MA/125/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed a motion application for condonation of delay by a bank in re-filing an original application due to health-related absence, subject to a condition regarding future interest claims on the defaulted period.

What did the court decide?

Motion allowed on condition that interest for the defaulted period be considered for levy at the time of issuing the Recovery Certificate.

City Union Bank versus M s Pon Lakshmi Traders — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2022)

¶1

MA 125/22 in OASR 2583/2021

¶2

23.11.2022

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 23^rd day of November, 2022

¶6

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K. Presiding Officer

¶7

MA No. 125/2022 in OASR No.2583/2021

¶8

City Union Bank Tiruvallur Branch Rep. by its Branch Manager Sh. K. Petchimuthu No.3568, TNHB, Avadi By Pass Tiruvallur – 602 001 .....Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

M/s. Pon Lakshmi Traders Represented by its Proprietor, Mr. S. Ponraja

¶11

Plot No.17, K.G.P. Nagar, Jaya Nagar Tiruvallur – 602 001

¶12

Mr. S. Ponraja,

¶13

S/o. Sundarakumar Nadar Plot No.17, K.G.P. Nagar, Jaya Nagar Tiruvallur – 602 001

¶14

Mrs. P. Jayalakshmi W/o Sh. S. Ponraja Plot No.17, K.G.P. Nagar, Jaya Nagar Tiruvallur – 602 001 ….Respondents

¶15

Counsel for Applicant : Mr. Akshai Mani

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This MA is filed by the Petitioner / Applicant Bank for condonation of delay of

¶18

206 days in re-presenting the Original Application after complying with the office objections.

¶19

MA 125/22 in OASR 2583/2021

¶20

23.11.2022

¶21

¶22

It is the case of the petitioner / applicant bank that the objections were duly contemplated to be complied upon but however as the Branch Manager was unwell and could not reach his counsel for giving instructions for re-presentation of OA they could not re-present the OA within time granted by this Tribunal and prays to condone the delay.

¶23

On perusal of records, it is seen that this is an OA filed for recovery of sum of Rs.52,60,509/- together with future interest at the rate of 15% p.a. compounded with monthly rests plus penal interest at the rate of 2% p.a. from defendants. It is not explained anywhere in the petition as to how applicant bank will be entitled to claim interest at the contractual rate for the period of delay, which is owing to their inaction and not attributable to any action of the defendant. As the period of delay is on the very high side, condonation of the same by levying formal amount in the form of costs payable either to the Library Fund or to any Charity organization as a measure of reprimand would not be justifiable when compared with the levy of interest burden on the defendants for the period of default on the part of the applicant bank for no fault of the borrower.

¶24

However, in the circumstances, this MA is allowed on the condition that the subject of levy of interest for the defaulted period (206 days) which is condoned at this stage of the OA proceedings shall stand for consideration at the time of issuance of Recovery Certificate by the progress of the case and the conduct of the case on behalf of the applicant bank till the stage of issuance of the recovery certificate. Registry is

¶25

MA 125/22 in OASR 2583/2021

¶26

23.11.2022

¶27

¶28

directed to put up a note accordingly for consideration of claim of interest for this default period at the time of drawing of the Recovery Certificate in case for an order thereto by

¶29

the Tribunal.

¶30

5. Registry is directed to number the OA, if otherwise found to be in order.

¶31

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, corrected, signed and processed through E-drt on this the 23^rd day of November, 2022)

¶32

Sd/- (GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

City Union Bank v. M s Pon Lakshmi Traders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

City Union Bank v. M s Pon Lakshmi Traders

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

Similar cases

M Saravanan versus Canara Bank

R Nalayni versus Canara Bank

M s Rajarajan Motors versus Icici Bank Limited

Raja Enterprises versus Canara Bank

Bairava Transports versus Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited

K Thomas versus Sbfc Finance Private Limited