Allowed

Icici Bank Limited v. Suresh Paul

DRT3 Jul 2023MA/89/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed a motion application for condonation of a 146-day delay in re-presenting an Original Application. The court held that while condoning such a high delay without financial penalty is unjustifiable due to the bank's inaction, the applicant must bear the interest loss suffered by the defendant. The matter is allowed conditionally, with interest for the delayed period to be conside

What did the court decide?

The Motion Application allowing condonation of delay was allowed conditionally, subject to the levy of formal costs and consideration of interest for the 146-day delayed period at the time of issuing

Icici Bank Limited versus Suresh Paul — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

MA No.89/2023 in OASR No.13616/22 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.89/23 in OASR No.13616/2022

¶7

M/s.ICICI Bank Limited, Rep. by its Manager, No.1, Cenotaph Road, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.

¶8

.....Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

Mr.J.Suresh Paul, S/o.Issac Jones, No.13, 50 Feet Road, Morai, Anna Nagar, Thirumalai Nagar, Avadi, Near Baba Temple,

¶11

Chennai – 600 055. ….Respondent Counsel for Applicant : M/s.H.Sekaran.

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

This MA is filed by the Petitioner / Applicant Bank for condonation of delay of 146 days in re-presenting the Original Application after complying with the office objections.

¶14

It is the case of the petitioner / applicant bank submitted that that the returns pointed out by the Registry were contemplated to be complied upon, however, as applicant bank’s Counsel’s junior expired and as the case bundle was with him, it is their case that applicant bank could not re-present the OA within time granted by this Tribunal and therefore prays to condone the delay.

¶15

On perusal of records, it is seen that this is an OA filed for recovery of sum of Rs.77,84,493/- together with future interest at the rate of 13.01% p.a. compounded with

¶16

MA No.89/2023 in OASR No.13616/22 2

¶17

03.07.2023

¶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 (146 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 03^rd day of July, 2023)

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

(GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER

Icici Bank Limited v. Suresh Paul

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Icici Bank Limited v. Suresh Paul

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

State Bank of India versus Dhileep Kumar

Mr v Sathyanarayanan versus Union Bank of India

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