Uco Bank v. Vinay and Co.
Case brief
What is this about?
DT III Chennai allowed condonation of an 119-day delay by the petitioner bank in re-presenting its Original Application, levying formal costs as the interest burden for the delayed period was unjustifiable.
What did the court decide?
Condonation of 119 days delay; formal costs levied as measure of reprimand; Recovery Certificate to consider interest separately.
What the court decided
MA No.68/2023 in OASR No.13191/22 1
08.06.2023
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – III, CHENNAI
Dated this the 08th day of June, 2022
Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K. Presiding Officer
MA No.68/23 in OASR No.13191/2022
UCO Bank,
Rep. by its Senior Manager, Triplicane Branch, C.N.Krishnaswamy Road, Triplicane,
Chennai – 600 005. .....Petitioner
Vs.
- M/s.Vinay & Co., Rep. by its Prop. Mr.VinayKumar Dubey, No.38, Srinivasa Perumal Koil Street, West Avenue Road, Kodungaiyur,
Chennai – 600 118.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether delay in re-presenting the Original Application after complying with office objections deserves condonation.
Whether interest for the defaulted period attributable to inaction of the applicant bank can be levied during the delay period.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
UCO Bank
- respondent
M/s. Vinay & Co.
- respondent
Mr. Vinaykumar Dubey
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
2 orders share this CNR
- Order 1 — this page · P.o
- Order 2 · S.v. Gowramma
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court