Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sudersan

DRT4 Sept 2023MA/119/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed a maintenance application filed by State Bank of India seeking condonation of a 243-day delay in re-presenting its original application due to file mishandling. The court granted relief conditionally, reserving the question of interest for the defaulted period to be decided during issuance of the Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay allowed on condition that interest for the delay period will be considered at the time of drawing the Recovery Certificate.

State Bank of India versus Sudersan — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

MA No.119/2023 in OASR No.3384/2021

¶2

04.09.2023

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 04^th day of September, 2023

¶6

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

¶7

MA No. 119/23 in OASR No.3384/2021

¶8

State Bank of India, Chengalpattu Branch, Rep. By its Chief Manager, No.9, Varadha Reddy Street, Vedachalam Nagar, Chengalput – 603 001. .....Applicant Vs.

¶9

Mr.A.V.Sudersan @ Ambalam Ponniah Vasan, S/o.Mr.A.P.Srikrishna Vasan, (Rep. By his POA A.P.S.Usha) No.309, 2^nd Cross Street, First Floor, A.G.S. Colony, Kottivakkam, Chennai – 600 041. ….Defendant Counsel for Applicant : M/s.S.Rajesh.

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

This MA is filed by the Petitioner / Applicant Bank for condonation of delay of 243 days in re-presenting the Original Application after complying with the office objections.

¶12

It is the case of the petitioner / applicant bank that the objections were duly contemplated to be complied upon but however as the files got mixed up the concerned officer could not trace the same immediately. Hence, the same was represented with a delay of 243 days.

¶13

On perusal of records, it is seen that this is an OA filed for recovery of sum of Rs.27,20,042/- together with future interest at the rate of 7.25% p.a. half yearly rests

¶14

MA No.119/2023 in OASR No.3384/2021

¶15

¶16

04.09.2023

¶17

from defendant. 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 defendant for the period of default on the part of the applicant bank for no fault of the borrower.

¶18

However, in the circumstances, this MA is allowed on the condition that the subject of levy of interest for the defaulted period (243 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.

¶19

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

¶20

(Dictated to steno (GS), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and processed through E-drt on this the 04^th day of September, 2023)

State Bank of India v. Sudersan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sudersan

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

Uco Bank versus M s Selva Furniture Prop Mrs D Kalpana Patel

Uco Bank versus The Star Cars Private Ltd.

Indian Bank versus Yesbal Exports Pvt. Ltd.

Bhawarlal Heerachand versus Canara Bank

Mrs Uma Pachiyappan versus The a O M s Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited

Uma Pachiyappan versus Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited