Allowed

Union Bank of India v. C P Saravanan

DRT20 Dec 2023MA/164/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this matter, the Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application to condone a 130-day delay in re-presenting its Original Application, attributing the delay to misplaced documents and the bank's inaction rather than respondent fault, while reserving the issue of interest liability for the delay period until the Recovery Certificate stage.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay of 130 days in re-presenting the Original Application allowed; recovery of interest for the defaulted period to be considered later.

Union Bank of India versus C P Saravanan — DRT (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

MA No.164/2023 in OASR No.1012/23

¶2

20.12.2023

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 20^th day of December, 2023

¶6

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

¶7

MA No.164/23 in OASR No.1012/2023 (Edrt -Dy. No.154/2023)

¶8

Union Bank of India (formerly Andhra Bank) Chennai Anna Salai Branch No.153, LIC Building Ground Floor Anna Salai Chennai – 600 002

¶9

....Petitioner

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

C.P. Saravanan S/o C. Paramasivam Flat – S-3, 2^nd Floor Harani – Lotus Block Senthil Nagar, Vijaya Nagar Extension Varadarajapuram, Tambaram West Chennai – 600 045

¶12

Mrs. S. Priyadharshini W/o C.P. Saravanan Flat – S-3, 2^nd Floor Harani – Lotus Block Senthil Nagar, Vijaya Nagar Extension Varadarajapuram, Tambaram West Chennai – 600 045 ….Respondents

¶13

Counsel for Petitioner bank : Sh. Gowthama Narayanan

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This MA is filed by the Petitioner / Applicant Bank for condonation of delay of 130 days in re-presenting the Original Application after complying with the office objections.

¶16

MA No.164/2023 in OASR No.1012/23

¶17

¶18

20.12.2023

¶19

It is the case of the petitioner / applicant bank that the objections were duly contemplated to be complied upon but however as the account was transferred from Chennai Anna Salai Branch to ARM Branch of applicant bank, some of the documents were misplaced and could be traced out only at a later point of time. Hence, there was delay in processing the returns and the OA was re-presented with a delay of 130 days and petitioner bank prayed for condonation of the same.

¶20

On perusal of records, it is seen that this is an OA filed for recovery of a total sum of Rs.41,65,925.15p due in respect of Housing Loan together with future interest at the rate of 8.55% p.a. 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 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.

¶21

However, in the circumstances, this MA is allowed on the condition that the subject of levy of interest for the defaulted period (130 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

¶22

MA No.164/2023 in OASR No.1012/23

¶23

¶24

20.12.2023

¶25

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

¶26

the Tribunal.

¶27

5. 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 20^th day of December, 2023)

¶29

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

Union Bank of India v. C P Saravanan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. C P Saravanan

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

Bank of India versus M/S Sri Sivasakthi Auto Ancillaries Madras Private Limited

Punjab National Bank versus Sundaram

M s Sri Sheshasai Enterprises versus Union Bank of India

Mrs S Vidya versus Indian Bank

Dhanraj versus Indian Bank

Mohideen Abdul Razak a versus Icici Bank Limited