Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S Sj Industries

DRT15 Dec 2023MA/167/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Maintenance Application for condonation of a 318-day delay in re-presenting the Original Application. The order imposed a condition regarding the calculation and consideration of interest liability for the defaulted period at the time of issuing the Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

MA allowed on condition that interest levy for the default period be considered at the time of issuance of the Recovery Certificate.

Canara Bank versus M/S Sj Industries — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

MA No.167/2023 in OASR No.3490/23

¶2

15.12.2023

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 15^th day of December, 2023

¶6

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

¶7

MA No.167/23 in OASR No.3490/2023

¶8

Canara Bank Rep. by its Manager Mount Road Branch Rayala Towers No.781-785, Anna Salai Chennai – 600 002

¶9

....Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1. M/s SJ Industries

¶12

Rep. by its Proprietrix Plot No.32, Electrical Industrial Estate Kakalur Tiruvallur – 602 003

¶13

Also at: M/s.SJ Industries No.57A, Aishwarya Nagar Korattur, Thirumullainoyal Chennai – 600 062

¶14

M/s.SJ Industries No.2, Lakshimpuram 7^th Main road, thirunindravur Tiruvallur – 602 024

¶15

M/s SJ Industries No.88, Perumal Koil Street Ernakuppam, Vadamadurai Tiruvallur, Uthukottai – 601 102

¶16

2. Mrs.R.Jothi W/o Mr.L.Raghu No.2, Lakshmipuram 7^th Main Road Thirunindravur

¶17

MA No.167/2023 in OASR No.3490/23

15.12.2023

Tiruvallur – 602 024

Also at: Mrs.R.Jothi No.88, Perumal Koil Street Ernakuppam, Vadamadurai Tiruvallur, Uthukottai – 601 102 ….Respondents

¶22

Counsel for Petitioner bank : M/s. Akshai Mani

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

This MA is filed by the Petitioner / Applicant Bank for condonation of delay of 318 days in re-presenting the Original Application after complying with the office objections.

¶25

It is the case of the petitioner / applicant bank that the objections were duly contemplated to be complied upon but however as the OA was originally filed before Hon’ble DRT – 2 by yet another counsel, who underwent medical treatment and hence could not continue prosecution of OA. Ld.counsel for applicant bank further submitted that in view of the Notification dated 04.10.2022, this OA was transferred to this Tribunal. Subsequently, applicant bank had entrusted the OA to him, by change of vakalat and hence OA could not be re-presented within the time granted by this Tribunal. Hence, the same was re-presented with a delay of 318 days and petitioner bank prayed for condonation of the same.

¶26

On perusal of records, it is seen that this is an OA filed for recovery of sum of total sum of Rs.38,72,918/- viz., Rs.30,39,702/-/- due under SOD Facility together with interest at the rate of 9.6% per annum with monthly rests and Rs.8,33,216/- due under

¶27

MA No.167/2023 in OASR No.3490/23

¶28

¶29

15.12.2023

¶30

WCTL restructuring together with interest at the rate of 9.15% per annum 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.

¶31

However, in the circumstances, this MA is allowed on the condition that the subject of levy of interest for the defaulted period (318 days) which is condoned at this stage of the OA proceedings shall stand for consideration at the time of issuance of eventual 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.

¶32

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

¶33

(Dictated to Steno (DD), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and processed by me through E-drt on this the 15^th day of December, 2023)

¶34

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

Canara Bank v. M/S Sj Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S Sj Industries

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 Arumugam

N Somasundaram versus Indian Bank

Bank of India versus M/S Unicon Engineerss Rep by It Proprietor Mr Sanjeevi Chakaravarthy R

South Indian Bank versus the Venkateswar Steel Traders

Maruthi Plastics versus Canara Bank

Mr R Sridhar versus Indian Bank