Allowed

The Cosmos Co. operative Bank Ltd. v. Sri Muthumariamman Container

DRT18 Aug 2022MA/75/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the mortgage application for condonation of 453-day delay due to pandemic and translation issues, subject to levying formal costs and holding interest liability for judgment debtor pending the Recovery Certificate stage.

What did the court decide?

The mortgage application for condonation of delay is allowed on the condition that the levy of interest for the defaulted period shall stand for consideration at the time of drawing the Recovery Certi

The Cosmos Co. operative Bank Ltd. versus Sri Muthumariamman… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2022)

¶1

MA No.75/22 in OASR No.185/2020 18.08.2022

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – III, CHENNAI

¶3

Dated this the 18^th day of August, 2022

¶4

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

¶5

M.A. No. 75/22 in OASR No.185/2020

¶6

The Cosmos Co-operative Bank Limited, Madipakkam Branch

¶7

Plot No.2, New No.3, Ground Floor, Defence Colony, Medavakkam Main Road, Madipakkam, Chennai – 600 091. Represented by its Authorized Officer, Mr. VivekInamdar

¶8

.....Applicant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

Sri Muthumariamman Container Carrier Represented by Proprietrix Ms.G. Yamuna Rani New No.115/67, Desiya Nagar 4^th Street, Chennai – 600 081.

¶11

Mrs. G. Yamuna Rani, W/o. Mr. R. Govindan, No.67/115, Desiya Nagar, 4^th Street, New Washermanpet, Tondiarpet, Chennai – 600 081.

¶12

Mr.R. Govindan, S/o. Late Joseph, No.67/115, Desiya Nagar, 4^th Street, New Washermanpet, Tondiarpet, Chennai – 600 081.

¶13

Mary Shantha, W/o. Late Joseph, No.67/115, Desiya Nagar, 4^th Street, New Washermanpet, Tondiarpet, Chennai – 600 081.

¶14

MA No.75/22 in OASR No.185/2020 18.08.2022

¶15

L. Jayakumar, S/o. Lakshmikanthan, Old No.5, New No.6, Kadumpadiyamman Koil Street, 2nd Cross Street, Chennai – 600 118.

¶16

... Defendants

¶17

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. J. Paulraj

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

It is the case of the petitioner / applicant bank that 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. It is also submitted that translation of Tamil documents into English also took considerable time.

¶22

On perusal of records, it is seen that this is an OA filed for recovery of sum of Rs.31,16,756.62/- 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

¶23

MA No.75/22 in OASR No.185/2020 18.08.2022

¶24

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.

¶25

However, in the circumstances, this MA is allowed on the condition that the subject of levy of interest for the defaulted period (453 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 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.

¶26

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

¶27

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, corrected, signed and processed through E-drt on this the 18^th day of August, 2022)

¶28

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

The Cosmos Co. operative Bank Ltd. v. Sri Muthumariamman Container

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Cosmos Co. operative Bank Ltd. v. Sri Muthumariamman Container

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

Nagavalli versus Canara Bank

K Linkesh versus Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited

Thaheera Begum versus Repco Home Finance Limited

The Cosmos Co. operative Bank Ltd. versus M s Suddarsan Cars

M K Agencies versus Canara Bank

Mr Dinesh Kishnan versus South Indian Bank