Allowed

Uco Bank v. Ms Salonaarti

DRT8 Nov 2023MA/143/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the petition for condonation of a 352-day delay in re-presenting an Original Application due to file mix-up. The applicant was barred from claiming contractual interest for the defaulted period post-allowance, with the levy of interest to be decided later at the issuance of the Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of 352-day delay allowed; appellant barred from claiming contractual interest for the delayed period pending recovery certificate.

Uco Bank versus Ms Salonaarti — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2023)

¶1

MA No.143/2023 in OASR No.3309/23 1

¶2

08.11.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 08^th day of November, 2023

¶5

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K.

¶6

Presiding Officer

¶7

MA No.143/23 in OASR No.3309/2023

¶8

UCO Bank, Triplicane Branch, Rep. By its Senior Manager, No.62, Ground Floor, C.N.Krishnaswamy Road, Triplicane,

¶9

Chennai – 600 005. .....Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

M/s.Salonaarti, Sole Proprietorix, Ms.Arti Amarendra, 157/7 Eden Garden, M.G.R.Street, Uthandi, Chennai – 600 119.

¶12

Ms.Arti Amarendra No.19, First Floor, Dr.Ranga Road, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.

¶13

Also at:

¶14

Ms.Arti Amarendra, 66, Oxford Centre, C.P.Ramasamy Road, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. ….Respondents Counsel for Applicant : M/s.R.Selvakumar.

¶15

MA No.143/2023 in OASR No.3309/23

08.11.2023

O R D E R

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

¶20

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

¶21

It is the case of the petitioner / applicant bank that the objections were duly contemplated to be complied upon but however as the OA file got mixed up files of other Advocates case bundle in High Court Chamber of counsel on record and could be traced out only at a later point of time. Hence, the same was re-presented with a delay of 352 days and petitioner bank prayed time for condonation of the same.

¶22

On perusal of records, it is seen that this is an OA filed for recovery of sum of Rs.53,84,409/- together with future interest at the rate of 8.45% p.a. compounded with 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 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.

¶23

However, in the circumstances, this MA is allowed on the condition that the subject of levy of interest for the defaulted period (352 days) which is condoned at this

¶24

MA No.143/2023 in OASR No.3309/23 3

¶25

08.11.2023

¶26

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.

¶27

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

¶28

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, corrected, signed and processed through E-drt on this the 08^th day of November, 2023)

¶29

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

Uco Bank v. Ms Salonaarti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. Ms Salonaarti

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

Indian Bank versus Geetha Lakshmi

Icici Bank Limited versus M/S Aagna Global Solutions Private Limited

City Union Bank Limited versus M/S Perfect Medical Agencies Rep by Its Prop Mr S Arumugam

Uco Bank versus Ms Proart

State Bank of India versus Chandrasekar

Bank of India versus Arumugam