Allowed

State Bank of India v. Om Sri Sidhivinayagar Agency

DRT24 Aug 2023MA/110/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single bench order allowing a Money Application filed by the State Bank of India to condone a 596-day delay in re-presenting the Original Application for debt recovery, conditioning future interest claims on the recovery certificate stage.

What did the court decide?

Money Application allowed on the condition that the claim for interest during the defaulted period is to be considered at the time of issuance of the Recovery Certificate.

State Bank of India versus Om Sri Sidhivinayagar Agency — Company and Corporate | DRT (2023)

¶1

MA No.110/2023 in OASR No.1042/2021

¶2

24.08.2023

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 24^th day of August, 2023

¶6

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

¶7

MA No. 110/23 in OASR No.1042/2021

¶8

State Bank of India, Represented by its City Case Officer, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, No. 32, Red Cross Building II Floor, Montirth Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.

¶9

.....Applicant

¶10

Vs.

¶11

M/s.Om Sri Sidhi Vinayagar Agency, Old No. 457, New No. 457/1B, Kancheepuram High Road, Aathur Village, Chengalpet – 603 101.

¶12

Mrs. Saranya, Prop. Om Sri Sidhi Vinayagar Agency, D/o. V. Radhakrishanan, No.43, Shivan Street (Krishna Street), Valasarawakkam, Chennai – 600 087.

¶13

Mr. V. Radhakrishnan, S/o, T. Vembuli, No.43, Shivan Street (Krishna Street), Valasarawakkam, Chennai – 600 087. …Respondents

¶14

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. C.P.R. Kamaraj

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This MA is filed by the Petitioner / Applicant Bank for condonation of delay of 596

¶17

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

¶18

MA No.110/2023 in OASR No.1042/2021

¶19

¶20

24.08.2023

¶21

It is the case of the petitioner / applicant bank that the returns were contemplated to be complied upon, however due to Pandemic Covid situation, applicant bank could not contact their counsel and furnish the required details and the connected papers were also misplaced, due to migration from Chenglepet Branch to SARB Branch. Therefore, 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.

¶22

On perusal of records, it is seen that this is an OA filed for recovery of sum of Rs.58,00,383/- together with future interest at the rate of 13.95% p.a. compounded 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 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.

¶23

However, in the circumstances, this MA is allowed on the condition that the subject of levy of interest for the defaulted period (596 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

¶24

MA No.110/2023 in OASR No.1042/2021

¶25

¶26

24.08.2023

¶27

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

¶28

the Tribunal.

¶29

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

¶30

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, corrected, signed and processed through E-drt on this the 24^th day of August, 2023)

¶31

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

State Bank of India v. Om Sri Sidhivinayagar Agency

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Om Sri Sidhivinayagar Agency

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

Juspus Shalin versus Indian Overseas Bank

Benon Shalin versus Indian Overseas Bank

Venus Exports versus Jana Small Finance Bank Ltd.

Canara Bank versus M/S Sukrithi Ventures

State Bank of India versus Saai Sharavanan

Union Bank of India (Corporation Bank) versus Ms Jothi Traders Prop Mrs R Schitra