Allowed

State Bank of India v. Abinaya Traders

DRT5 Sept 2023MA/124/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed a money application for condonation of 201 days delay in re-presenting an Original Application by an applicant bank, citing counsel's health issues. The court imposed a condition that interest levied on the default period remains for consideration at the time of issuing the Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Allowed condonation of 201 days delay on condition that interest for the defaulted period shall be considered at the time of issuance of the Recovery Certificate.

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

¶1

MA No.124/2023 in OASR No.12404/2022

¶2

05.09.2023

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 05^th day of September, 2023

¶6

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

¶7

MA No. 124/23 in OASR No.12404/2022

¶8

M/s.State Bank of India, Rep. By its Manager, SMEC Teynampet, No.556, Jeevan Anand Building, Ground Floor, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018. .....Applicant

¶9

Vs.

¶10

M/s.Abinaya Traders, Rep. By its Proprietor Mr.U.Alexander, Shop No.1, Ground Floor, No.2/45, Parthasarathy Naidu Street, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005.

¶11

Also at:

¶12

Old No.133/134, New No.421, T.H.Road, Tondiarpet, Chennai - 600 081.

¶13

Mr.U.Alexander, S/o.Uthaman, Prop. M/s.Abinaya Traders, No.12/2, Neeli Veeraswamy Street, 2^nd Lane, Triplicane, Chennai – 600 005.

¶14

Also at:

¶15

No.144, Bells Road, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005. ….Defendants

¶16

MA No.124/2023 in OASR No.12404/2022

¶17

¶18

05.09.2023

¶19

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.G.Sudhakar.

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This MA is filed by the Petitioner / Applicant Bank for condonation of delay of 201 days in re-presenting the Original Application after complying with the office objections.

¶22

It is the case of the petitioner / applicant bank that the objections were duly contemplated to be complied upon but however as counsel on record was suffering from severe ulcer problem and undergone Endoscopy, he was unable to re-present the OA within time granted by this Tribunal and therefore prays to condone the delay.

¶23

On perusal of records, it is seen that this is an OA filed for recovery of sum of Rs.49,79,482/- together with future interest and costs. 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 defendants. 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.

¶24

However, in the circumstances, this MA is allowed on the condition that the subject of levy of interest for the defaulted period (201 days) which is condoned at this stage of the OA proceedings shall stand for consideration at the time of issuance of

¶25

MA No.124/2023 in OASR No.12404/2022 3

¶26

05.09.2023

¶27

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

¶28

the Tribunal.

¶29

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

¶30

(Dictated to steno (GS), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and processed through E-drt on this the 05^th day of September, 2023)

¶31

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

State Bank of India v. Abinaya Traders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Abinaya Traders

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

Uma Pachiyappan versus Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited

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

State Bank of India versus Sudersan

Canara Bank versus M/S Aaysha Mariam Leathers Exports

Karnataka Bank Limited versus M s Galaxy Solution

State Bank of India versus K Sekar