Allowed

Karnataka Bank Limited v. M s Galaxy Solution

DRT6 Sept 2023MA/91/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application to condone a delay of 1240 days in re-presenting the Original Application, attributing the delay to misplaced bundles and pandemic restrictions, though conditioning the decision on future consideration of interest liability.

What did the court decide?

MA allowed on condition that interest levy for the defaulted period stands for consideration at the time of issuing the Recovery Certificate.

Karnataka Bank Limited versus M s Galaxy Solution — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2023)

¶1

MA No.91/2023 in OASR No.848/2019

¶2

06.09.2023

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 06^th day of September, 2023

¶6

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

¶7

MA No. 91/2023 in OASR No.848/2019

¶8

Karnataka Bank Limited, Rep. by its Branch Manager, New No. 22, 3^rd Cross Street, Venkateshpuram Colony, Ayanavaram, Chennai – 600 023.

¶9

.....Applicant

¶10

Vs.

¶11

M/s. Galaxy Solution, Rep. by its Partners, 1/22, 23^rd Main Road MIG Type Phase II, Manali Puthu NA Block, Chennai, Chennai (DT), Tamil Nadu – 600 103.

¶12

Also at:

¶13

No. 18/5, First Floor, Mahatma Gandhi Road, TASS Industrial Estate, Ambattur Sidco, Chennai – 600 098.

¶14

Mr. Saravanan A, S/o. Arumugam K, No.17B, Thoniamman Kovil, 3^rd Lane, Villivakkam, Chennai – 600 049.

¶15

Mr. Balakrishnan G, S/o. Gopal Krishnan, No. 276, Sakthi Flats, 1 Floor, Konnur High Road, Chennai – 600 023.

¶16

MA No.91/2023 in OASR No.848/2019

¶17

¶18

06.09.2023

¶19

Mr. Vignesh A, S/o. Arumugam K, No.17B, Thoniamman Kovil, 3^rd Lane, Villivakkam, Chennai – 600 049.

¶20

Mr. Arumugam K, S/o. Krishnan R, No.17B, Thoniamman Kovil, 3^rd Lane, Villivakkam, Chennai – 600 049.

¶21

Mr. Raju B, S/o. Balakrishnan G, No.276, Konnur High Road, Ayanavaram, Chennai – 600 023. ….Defendants

¶22

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶23

Counsel for Applicant : Mr. V. Anilkumar

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

This MA is filed by the Petitioner / Applicant Bank for condonation of delay of 1240 days in re-presenting the Original Application after complying with the office objections.

¶26

It is the case of the petitioner / applicant bank that the objections were duly contemplated to be complied upon, however, as case bundles got mixed up with other bundles and could not be located immediately due to Pandemic Covid-19 situation restrictions, and could be traced out only at a later point of time. Therefore, it is their case that they could not re-present the OA within time granted by this Tribunal and therefore prays to condone the delay.

¶27

MA No.91/2023 in OASR No.848/2019

¶28

¶29

06.09.2023

¶30

On perusal of records, it is seen that this is an OA filed for recovery of sum of Rs.1,39,59,272/- together with future interest and costs. 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.

¶31

However, in the circumstances, this MA is allowed on the condition that the subject of levy of interest for the defaulted period (1240 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.

¶32

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

¶33

(Dictated to Steno, transcribed by her, corrected, corrected, signed and processed through E-drt on this the 06^th day of September, 2023)

¶34

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

Karnataka Bank Limited v. M s Galaxy Solution

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Bank Limited v. M s Galaxy Solution

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus M/S Aaysha Mariam Leathers Exports

State Bank of India versus Abinaya Traders

Uma Pachiyappan versus Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited

State Bank of India versus K Sekar

State Bank of India versus Gopi Reddy

Union Bank of India versus Mrs Maala Ranghan And Others