Allowed

Uco Bank v. The Star Cars Private Ltd.

DRT1 Sept 2023MA/70/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the UCO Bank's motion application condoning an 110-day delay in re-presenting a maintenance application intended to restore an original application dismissed for default. The registry directed numbering of the new application, granting sanction but denying interest during the default period.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 110 days was condoned; MA No.9248/2022 was numbered and allowed; levy of interest during the defaulted period denied.

Uco Bank versus The Star Cars Private Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

MA No.70/2023 in OA No.247/2021

¶2

01.09.2023

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 01^st day of September, 2023

¶6

Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K.

¶7

Presiding Officer

¶8

MA No. 70/2023 in OA No.247/2021

¶9

UCO Bank, Pondicherry Main Branch, Represented by its Assistant General Manager Mr. K. Edwin Paul, No.07, Rule Mahe De Labourdonnais, Pondicherry – 605 001. .....Applicant

¶10

Vs.

¶11

The Star Cars Private Ltd, No. 90, Kamaraj Salai, Thattanchavady, Pondicherry – 605 009.

¶12

Mrs. Wahitha Shajahan W/o. Mr. H.F.Shajahan, No.64, Reu Suffren Street, Pondicherry – 605 001.

¶13

Mrs.D. Zeenath, W/o. M.O.H. Iqbal, No.64, ReuSuffren Street, Pondicherry – 605 001.

¶14

M/s. Reshma Shahjahan, D/o. Mr. H.F.Shahjahan, No.64, Reu Suffren Street, Pondicherry – 605 001.

¶15

Mr. Shahjahan Maricar Hasan Feroze, S/o. Farook Maricar Shahjahan Maricar, No.12, Rue Suffren Steel, Pondicherry – 605 001.

¶16

….Defendants

¶17

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.Shree Law Services. Counsel for Defendants : M/s. R. Ramasubramaniam Raja

¶18

MA No.70/2023 in OA No.247/2021

01.09.2023

O R D E R

This MA is filed by the Petitioner / Applicant Bank for condonation of delay of 110 days in re-presenting the MA (SR No.9248/2022) filed for restoring the OA No.247/2021 which was dismissed for default on 05.08.2022.

¶23

It is the case of the petitioner / applicant bank that above OA is filed for recovery of sum of Rs.6,01,07,905/-together with future interest at the rate of 10.5% p.a. due as on 31.12.2020 together with subsequent interest thereon compounded with quarterly rests. It is submitted that the OA was dismissed on 05.08.2022 due to non filing of SOC memo and AOS. The restoration petition filed by applicant bank on 02.09.2022 was returned by Registry on 22.09.2022. As the petition copy along with entire OA paper book was misplace in counsel’s office, they could not re-present the same within time. Hence there occurred delay of 110 days in re-presenting the IA filed for restoration of OA. It is submitted that the delay was neither willful nor wanton but only due to the above said reason and prayed for condoning the same.

¶24

In the circumstances, this MA is allowed condoning delay of 110 days in representing MA filed for restoration of OA. Registry is directed to number MA SR No.9248/2022 filed to restore OA which was dismissed on 05.08.2022. Upon numbering MA stands allowed. However, applicant bank will not be entitled for levy of interest during the defaulted period.

¶25

4. Call on 08.11.2023.

¶26

(Dictated to Steno (GS), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and processed through E-drt on this the 01^st day of September, 2023)

¶27

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

Uco Bank v. The Star Cars Private Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. The Star Cars Private Ltd.

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

Indian Bank versus Udhagai Pazhamudhir Cholai

Indian Bank versus Udhagai Daily Needs

Canara Bank versus Ms S L Anandan Stores and Contractors

Indian Bank versus Yesbal Exports Pvt. Ltd.

Uco Bank versus M s Selva Furniture Prop Mrs D Kalpana Patel

Bhawarlal Heerachand versus Canara Bank