Allowed

State Bank of India v. Dhileep Kumar

DRT3 Jul 2023MA/88/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DT allowed condonation of an 844-day delay in re-presenting an application for recovery. The court imposed the condition that interest for the delayed period be treated as a penalty or cost payable to a charity at the time of issuing the Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

The MA is allowed; interest for the delayed period to be claimed as costs from the applicant bank at the time of issuing the Recovery Certificate.

State Bank of India versus Dhileep Kumar — DRT (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

MA No.88/2023 in OASR No.2129/20 1

¶2

03.07.2023

¶3

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – III, CHENNAI

¶4

Dated this the 03^rd day of July, 2023

¶5

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

¶6

MA No.88/23 in OASR No.2129/2020

¶7

State Bank of India, Rep. by its Chief Manager, Asset Recovery Management Branch, No.44, 1^st Floor, Eldams Road, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018. .....Applicant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Mr.V.Dhilip Kumar, S/o.Venugopal, BLK 817, No.03-40, Jurong West Street 81, Land Mark: Near Jurong Market, Singapore – 640 851.

¶10

Also at: No.19/4, J.J.Durai Raj Nagar, 5^th Street, Aminjikarai, Near MMDA Sewage Station, Chennai – 600 029.

¶11

Mrs.D.Lavanya, W/o.Dhilip Kumar, No.19/4, J.J.Durai Raj Nagar, 5^th Street, Aminjikarai, Near MMDA Sewage Station, Chennai – 600 029. ….Defendants

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M/s.C.P.R.Kamaraj.

¶13

MA No.88/2023 in OASR No.2129/20

03.07.2023

O R D E R

This MA is filed by the Petitioner / Applicant Bank for condonation of delay of 844 days in re-presenting the Original Application after complying with the office objections.

¶18

It is the case of the petitioner / applicant bank submitted that the returns pointed out by the Registry were contemplated to be complied upon. However, the loan account of defendants has been migrated from RACPC, Ayyappanthangal Branch to ARM Branch due to administrative reasons. It is further submitted that due to then existing pandemic situation, applicant bank could not contact their counsel frequently and unable to furnish the required details. Hence, they could not re-present the OA within time granted by this Tribunal and therefore prays to condone the delay.

¶19

On perusal of records, it is seen that this is an OA filed for recovery of sum of Rs.64,13,549/- together with future interest at the rate of 8.80% p.a. with monthly rests 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 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 defendants for the period of default on the part of the applicant bank for no fault of the borrower.

¶20

MA No.88/2023 in OASR No.2129/20 3

¶21

03.07.2023

¶22

However, in the circumstances, this MA is allowed on the condition that the subject of levy of interest for the defaulted period (844 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.

¶23

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

¶24

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, corrected, signed and processed through E-drt on this the 03^rd day of July, 2023)

¶25

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

State Bank of India v. Dhileep Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Dhileep Kumar

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

Indiabulls Asset Reconstruction Private Limited versus Rajkumar

P Sathish Kumar versus Indian Bank

Yes Bank versus M s Kbs Contractor

Icici Bank Limited versus Suresh Paul

Mr v Sathyanarayanan versus Union Bank of India

City Union Bank Limited versus Ms Aat Academy India Ltd. And Others