Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mr a v Sudersan

DRT10 Apr 2023MA/37/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the bank's motion application for condonation of a 243-day delay in re-presenting the Original Application, subject to the condition that the levy of interest for the defaulted period remains open for consideration at the stage of issuing the Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Motion Application allowed on condition that the interest burden claim for the 243 days of delay be considered later.

State Bank of India versus Mr a v Sudersan — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

MA No.37/2023 in OASR No.3383/2021 1

¶2

10.04.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 10^th day of April, 2023

¶5

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

¶6

MA No.37/23 in OASR No.3383/2021

¶7

State Bank of India Chengalput Branch, Represented by its Chief Manager No.9, Varadha Reddy Street, Vedachalam Nagar, Chengalput – 603 001. .....Petitioner bank

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Mr.A.V.Sudersan @ Ambalam Ponniah Vasan, S/o.Mr.A.P.Srikrishna Vasan, Rep. by his POA A.P.S. Usha No.309, 2^nd Cross Street, First Floor, A.G.S. Colony, Kottivakkam, Chennai – 600 041. ….Respondent

¶10

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.S.Rajesh.

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

It is the case of the petitioner / applicant bank that the objections were duly contemplated to be complied upon with regard to calculation mistake, but however due to transfer of concerned bank official, file got mixed up with other files and next incumbent could trace it out later only. Therefore, it is their case that they could not re-

¶15

MA No.37/2023 in OASR No.3383/2021 2

¶16

10.04.2023

¶17

present the OA within time granted by this Tribunal and therefore prays to condone the delay.

¶18

On perusal of records, it is seen that this is an OA filed for recovery of sum of Rs.27,19,696 /- together with future interest at the rate of 7.40% p.a. with half yearly rests from defendant. 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 defendant. 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 defendant for the period of default on the part of the applicant bank for no fault of the borrower.

¶19

However, in the circumstances, this MA is allowed on the condition that the subject of levy of interest for the defaulted period (243 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 the Tribunal.

¶20

MA No.37/2023 in OASR No.3383/2021 3

¶21

10.04.2023

¶22

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

¶23

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, corrected, signed and processed through E-drt on this the 10^th day of April, 2023)

¶24

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

State Bank of India v. Mr a v Sudersan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mr a v Sudersan

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

K Rajendran versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

Mrs S Eswari versus M s Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Company Ltd.

Sri Laxmi Timbers Pvt. Ltd. versus Union Bank of India

Ms Sun Sine Solution Pvt. Ltd. Rep by its Director v Venkatesh versus South Indian Bank

Tikku versus Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited

M Akilandeswari versus the South Indian Bank Ltd.