Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/S Agrofresh Exim

DRT12 Dec 2023MA/176/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Petitioner Bank's motion for condonation of a 318-day delay in re-presenting a recovery application. The court noted the delay was due to counsel change and ordered that interest for this default period be considered later at the recovery certificate stage, deeming immediate condonation without liability unjustifiable.

What did the court decide?

Motion allowed subject to interest for the 318-day default period being considered later at the stage of issuing the Recovery Certificate.

Canara Bank versus M/S Agrofresh Exim — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2023)

¶1

MA No.176/2023 in OASR No.3492/22

¶2

12.12.2023

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 12^th day of December, 2023

¶6

Present: ShriGanapathi K.R.K. Presiding Officer

¶7

MA No.176/23 in OASR No.3492/2023 (Edrt -Dy. No.597/2023)

¶8

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

¶9

....Petitioner

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

M/s Agrofresh Exim Rep. by its Proprietrix Mrs. T. Mageswari Ground Floor, Plot No.12 Kandigai Street, Kolathur, Chennai – 600 076

¶12

Also at Mrs. T. Mageswari Orchid Springs Apartment No.1119, 11^th Floor Maple Block No.54, Canal Road, Koratur Chennai – 600 076 2. Mrs. T. Mageswari W/o Mr. A. Muthuvel Ground Floor, Plot No.12, Kandigai Street, Kolathur Chennai – 600 076

¶13

Also at Mrs. T. Mageswari Orchid Springs Apartment No.1119, 11^th Floor Maple Block No.54, Canal Road, Koratur Chennai – 600 076 ….Respondents

¶14

MA No.176/2023 in OASR No.3492/22

¶15

¶16

12.12.2023

¶17

Counsel for Petitioner bank : Sh. Akshai Mani

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

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.

¶20

It is the case of the petitioner / applicant bank that the objections were duly contemplated to be complied upon but however as the erstwhile counsel had underwent medical treatment, she could not continue the service. Therefore, the case was entrusted to present counsel by way of change of vakalat. Hence, there was delay in processing the returns, the OA was re-presented with a delay of 318 days and petitioner bank prayed for condonation of the same.

¶21

On perusal of records, it is seen that this is an OA filed for recovery of a total sum of Rs.1,12,57,574/- due in respect of SOD, Covid FLT and FITL Restructuring facilities together with future interest with monthly rests and penal interest at the rate of 2% p.a. 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

¶22

MA No.176/2023 in OASR No.3492/22

¶23

¶24

12.12.2023

¶25

burden on the defendants for the period of default on the part of the applicant bank for no fault of the borrower.

¶26

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 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

¶27

the Tribunal.

¶28

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

¶29

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, corrected, signed and processed through E-drt on this the 12^th day of December, 2023)

¶30

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

Canara Bank v. M/S Agrofresh Exim

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/S Agrofresh Exim

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union Bank of India versus Mr S Venkatesan And Other

M Jagabar Ali versus Indian Bank

Idbi Bank versus Vani Sunil

City Union Bank Limited versus Yaaas Enterprisa

Uco Bank versus M s Shri Sabari Agency

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