Allowed

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

DRT11 Aug 2022MA/70/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In MA No. 70/2022, the Chennai DRT allowed the Cosmos Co-operative Bank Limited's application to condone a 327-day delay in re-presentering the original application for recovery of dues, attributing the delay to the bank's counsel's COVID-19 quarantine. The court, however, directed that interest for the defaulted period remain under consideration at the time of issuing the recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of 327 days delay in re-presentering the original application allowed; Registry directed to note the issue of levying interest for the defaulted period for consideration at

The Cosmos Co. operative Bank Ltd. versus Ms K Divya — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2022)

¶1

MA No.70/2022 in OASR No.4714/2020

¶2

11.08.2022

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 11^th day of August, 2022

¶6

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

¶7

MA No. 70/22 in OASR No.4714/2020

¶8

The Cosmos Co-operative Bank Limited, “Sriji Palace”, Plot No.37 (Old No.17), E.V.K. Sampath Road, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007. Rep. By its Authorised Officer Mr.Vivek Inamdar. .....Applicant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

M/s.K.Divya, D/o.Krishnamoorthy, No.392, LIG, 1, 1^st Main Road, 17^th Street, MMDA, Manali, Gummidipoondi, Tiruvallur, Chennai – 600 068.

¶11

Mrs.K.Banurekha W/o.Krishnamoorthy, No.392, LIG, 1, 1^st Main Road, 17^th Street, MMDA, Manali, Gummidipoondi, Tiruvallur, Chennai – 600 068.

¶12

Mr.K.Naveen Kumar, S/o.Krishnamoorthy, No.392, LIG, 1, 1^st Main Road, 17^th Street, MMDA, Manali, Gummidipoondi, Tiruvallur, Chennai – 600 068.

¶13

MA No.70/2022 in OASR No.4714/2020

¶14

¶15

11.08.2022

¶16

Mr.H.Karthikeyan, S/o.L.Harikrishnan, 10/228, Annai Illam, Mogappair East, Mogappair, Chennai – 600 037. ….Defendants

¶17

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.NVS & Associates.

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This MA is filed by the Petitioner / Applicant Bank for condonation of delay of 327 days in re-presenting the Original Application after complying with the office objections.

¶20

It is the case of the petitioner / applicant bank that although the returns dated 10.03.2021 were contemplated to the complied upon, however, due to upsurge in Covid 19, junior counsel, with whom case bundle was there, got affected with Covid infection and had to quarantine himself for some time. Hence, it is their case that they could not re-present the OA within time granted by this Tribunal and therefore prays to condone the delay.

¶21

On perusal of records, it is seen that this is an OA filed for recovery of sum of Rs.26,55,009.21p together with future interest at the rate of 14% p.a. with monthly rests 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

¶22

MA No.70/2022 in OASR No.4714/2020

¶23

¶24

11.08.2022

¶25

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.

¶26

However, in the circumstances, this MA is allowed on the condition that the subject of levy of interest for the defaulted period (327 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

¶27

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.

¶28

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

¶29

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, corrected, signed and processed through E-drt on this the 11^th day of August, 2022)

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

(GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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 Limited versus Sugaa Natural Life Science

New Care Printers Solutions versus Canara Bank

Nagavalli versus Canara Bank

K Linkesh versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited