Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mrs R Ayyammal

DRT15 May 2023MA/64/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the State Bank of India to condone a 126-day delay in re-presenting an Original Application due to Covid-19 affecting counsel. The court directed that the levy of interest for this default period be considered only at the stage of issuing the Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay allowed on condition that interest levy for the condoned default period be considered at the stage of issuing Recovery Certificate.

State Bank of India versus Mrs R Ayyammal — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

MA No.64/2023 in OASR No.13264/22 1

¶2

15.05.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 15^th day of May, 2023

¶5

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

¶6

MA No.64/23 in OASR No.13264/2022

¶7

State Bank of India,

¶8

Rep. by its Authorised Officer, RACPC – MRC Nagar Branch, No.4, Santhome High Road, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.

¶9

....Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

Mrs.M.Ayyammal, W/o.Murugesan, No.7/428, 7^th Block, 1^st Street, Mogappair, Chennai – 600 037. ….Respondent

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.A.Kumar.

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This MA is filed by the Petitioner / Applicant Bank for condonation of delay of 126 days in re-presenting the Original Application after complying with the office objections.

¶15

It is the case of the petitioner / applicant bank that the objections were duly contemplated to be complied upon but however as counsel on record and his clerk had to isolate themselves owing to attack of Covid virus, they could not re-present the OA within time granted by this Tribunal and therefore prays to condone the delay.

¶16

On perusal of records, it is seen that this is an OA filed for recovery of sum of Rs.28,62,920/- together with future interest at the rate of 8.6% p.a. compounded

¶17

MA No.64/2023 in OASR No.13264/22 2 15.05.2023

¶18

monthly 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 (126 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

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

¶21

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

¶22

Sd/- (GANAPATHI K.R.K)

State Bank of India v. Mrs R Ayyammal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mrs R Ayyammal

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

M S K Rameshraj versus Indian Overseas Bank

Canara Bank versus Mrs M Sellam

Mr N Thiruvengadam versus M s Orix Leasing And Financial Services India Limited

P Rajavel versus Bank of Maharashtra

M s Ocean Healthcare Private Limited versus Canara Bank

Mr Hemant Khandelwal Son of Mr Kamlesh Khandelwal versus Indian Overseas Bank