Allowed

Uco Bank v. M s Shri Sabari Agency

DRT12 Dec 2023MA/177/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the bank's application for condonation of a 196-day delay in re-presenting a recovery application due to administrative mix-up, subject to scrutiny of the bank's claim for interest during the delayed period at the time of issuing the recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

MA allowed on condition that claim for interest levied on the defaulted period during the delay be considered at the time of issuance of Recovery Certificate.

Uco Bank versus M s Shri Sabari Agency — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

MA No.177/2023 in OASR No.6729/22

¶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.

¶7

Presiding Officer

¶8

MA No.177/23 in OASR No.6729/2022

¶9

(Edrt -Dy. No.643/2022)

¶10

UCO Bank

¶11

Korattur Branch Rep. by its Senior Manager No.25, Shanthi Nagar Main Road Korattur, Chennai – 600 080

¶12

....Petitioner

¶13

-Vs-

¶14

M/s Shri Sabari Agency Rep. by its Sole Proprietrix Mrs. K. Sathi Devi No.104-C, Raja Street Siva Temple Back Side Padi, Chennai – 600 050

¶15

Mrs. K. Sathi Devi W/o K. Karthik No.104-C, Raja Street Siva Temple Back Side Padi, Chennai – 600 050 ….Respondents

¶16

Counsel for Petitioner bank : M/s R. Selvakumar

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This MA is filed by the Petitioner / Applicant Bank for condonation of delay of 196 days in re-presenting the Original Application after complying with the office objections.

¶19

MA No.177/2023 in OASR No.6729/22

¶20

¶21

12.12.2023

¶22

It is the case of the petitioner / applicant bank that the objections were duly contemplated to be complied upon but however the case bundle got mixed up with other Advocates case bundles in High Court chamber, which was traced out at a later point of time. Hence, there was delay in processing the returns and the OA was re-presented with a delay of 196 days and petitioner bank prayed for condonation of the same.

¶23

On perusal of records, it is seen that this is an OA filed for recovery of a total sum of Rs.42,91,683.46p viz., Rs. 34,67,695.09p due in respect of Cash Credit facility together with future interest at the rate of 13.35% p.a., Rs.6,02,442.46p due in respect Term Loan-I together with interest at the rate of 7.50% p.a. and Rs.2,21,545.90p due in

¶24

respect of Term Loan-II together with interest at the rate of 11.45% 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 burden on the defendants for the period of default on the part of the applicant bank for no fault of the borrower.

¶25

However, in the circumstances, this MA is allowed on the condition that the subject of levy of interest for the defaulted period (196 days), which is condoned at this stage of the OA proceedings, shall stand for consideration at the time of issuance of

¶26

MA No.177/2023 in OASR No.6729/22

¶27

¶28

12.12.2023

¶29

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

¶30

the Tribunal.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

(GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

Uco Bank v. M s Shri Sabari Agency

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. M s Shri Sabari Agency

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

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

Canara Bank versus M/S Agrofresh Exim

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