Allowed

The Cosmos Co. Operative Bank Limited v. Sugaa Natural Life Science

DRT10 Aug 2022MA/58/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application to condone a delay of 361 days in re-presenting an Original Application, attributing it to the pandemic. The order subjectively addressed the levying of interest for the defaulted period to be reconsidered at the recovery certificate stage.

What did the court decide?

MA allowed on condition: levy of interest for the defaulted period shall be considered at the time of Recovery Certificate.

The Cosmos Co. Operative Bank Limited versus Sugaa Natural… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2022)

¶1

MA No.58/22 in OASR No.1969/2020

¶2

10.08.2022

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 10^th day of August, 2022

¶6

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

¶7

M.A. No. 58/22 in OASR No.1969/2020

¶8

The Cosmos Co-operative Bank Limited Madipakkam Branch Plot No.2, New No.3, Ground Floor Defence Colony, Medavakkam Main Road Madipakkam, Chennai – 600 091. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶9

.....Applicant

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1. M/s. Sugaa Natural Life Science

¶12

Represented by its Proprietor Mr. K. Vhijayamurali, Having office at 2/40, 2^nd Floor, Ram Nagar, Nanganallur, Chennai – 600 061.

¶13

2. Mr.K. Vhijayamurali

¶14

S/o. Kannan 2/40, 2^nd Floor, Ram Nagar, Nanganallur, Chennai – 600 061.

¶15

3. Mrs. S. Anuradha

¶16

W/o. K. Vijhayamurali 2/40, 2^nd Floor, Ram Nagar, Nanganallur, Chennai – 600 061.

¶17

4. Mr. B.Prabhu

¶18

S/o R Bala Krishnan 134/1, Kalyana Sundaram Nagar K.K.Nagar, Trichy – 620 230

¶19

And also at No.84, EB Colony, Khajamalai, Trichy – 620230 ... Defendants

¶20

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. NVS & Associates

¶21

MA No.58/22 in OASR No.1969/2020

10.08.2022

O R D E R

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

¶26

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

¶27

It is the case of the petitioner / applicant bank due to lock down restrictions imposed on account of Pandemic Covid 19 and also as counsel for applicant bank was affected with Covid, they could not re-present the OA within time granted by this Tribunal and therefore prays to condone the delay.

¶28

On perusal of records, it is seen that this is an OA filed for recovery of sum of Rs.23,70,255-24p together with future interest at the rate of 14% p.a. compounded monthly 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.

¶29

However, in the circumstances, this MA is allowed on the condition that the subject of levy of interest for the defaulted period (361 days) which is condoned at this stage of the OA proceedings shall stand for consideration at the time of issuance of

¶30

MA No.58/22 in OASR No.1969/2020

¶31

¶32

10.08.2022

¶33

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 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 the Tribunal.

¶34

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

¶35

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, corrected, signed and processed through E-drt on this the 10^th day of August, 2022)

¶36

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

The Cosmos Co. Operative Bank Limited v. Sugaa Natural Life Science

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Cosmos Co. Operative Bank Limited v. Sugaa Natural Life Science

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

Kaliyaperumal versus Hinduja Housing finance Limited

Suseel versus Indian Bank

Mrfs G Ellamal versus Indian Bank

P Vinoth versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

The Cosmos Co. Operative Bank Limited Madipakkam Branch versus M/s Dr. Parthasarathy Memorial Hospital, Rep by its Prop. P. Karthik

The Cosmos Co. operative Bank Ltd. versus Ms K Divya