Allowed

Punjab and Sind Bank v. Amar Dinesh

DRT20 Sept 2022MA/85/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the bank's application to condone a 133-day delay in re-presenting the Original Application, attributed to bundle mix-up, but directed that the issue of interest on the delayed period be considered at the stage of issuing the Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay in 133 days allowed subject to future consideration of interest levy for the delayed period.

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Amar Dinesh — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2022)

¶1

MA No.85/22 in OASR No.1198/2021 1

¶2

20.09.2022

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 20^th day of September, 2022

¶5

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

¶6

M.A. No. 85/22 in OASR No.1198/2021

¶7

Punjab & Sind Bank Mogappair Branch No.2, 403, Seethakathi salai Block 12, Block 3, J.J.Nagar, Mogappair East, Chennai 600 037 Represented by its Manager. …Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1. Amar Dinesh

¶10

S/o C. Thangadurai, No.6, Canal Bank Road Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.

¶11

2. A.Rajasobana

¶12

W/o.Amar Dinesh No.6, Canal Bank Road Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. ....Respondents

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : Sh. P. Reghuraja

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This MA is filed by the Petitioner / Applicant Bank for condonation of delay of 133 days in re-presenting the Original Application after complying with the office objections.

¶16

MA No.85/22 in OASR No.1198/2021 2

¶17

20.09.2022

¶18

It is the case of the petitioner / applicant bank that the OA was returned for compliance on 03.01.2022. However, as the bundle got mixed with other case bundles, applicant could not able to re-present the OA within time granted by this Tribunal and therefore prays to condone the delay.

¶19

On perusal of records, it is seen that this is an OA filed for recovery of sum of Rs.24,68,179.24p towards Housing loan and Rs.3,59,170/- towards auto loan and thereby aggregating 28,27,349.24p at the rate of interest @ 10.75% respectively, 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.

¶20

However, in the circumstances, this MA is allowed on the condition that the subject of levy of interest for the defaulted period (133 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

¶21

MA No.85/22 in OASR No.1198/2021 3

¶22

20.09.2022

¶23

period at the time of drawing of the Recovery Certificate in case for an order thereto by

¶24

the Tribunal.

¶25

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

¶26

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, corrected, signed and processed through E-drt on this the 20^th day of September, 2022)

¶27

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

Punjab and Sind Bank v. Amar Dinesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab and Sind Bank v. Amar Dinesh

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

Mr C Jagadeesan versus Bank of Baroda

Fathima Gani versus Canara Bank

R Ravindran versus Bank of Baroda

Sankar versus Icici Bank Limited

Mrs Mahalakshmi versus Mahindra Rural Housing finance Ltd.

Miha Catering Services Pvt. Ltd. Rep by Its Managing Director Santhacrus Sagayaraj versus Rbl Bank Limited