Allowed

State Bank of India v. Kimchi Corner

DRT1 Feb 2024MA/16/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the bank's application for condonation of a 215-day delay in re-presenting the original application due to administrative reasons, subject to conditions regarding levy of interest for the defaulted period later in the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of 215 days delay allowed on condition that interest for the delayed period remains liable for consideration at the time of Recovery Certificate issuance.

State Bank of India versus Kimchi Corner — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

MA No.16/24 in OASR No.1796/22

¶2

01.02.2024

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 01^st day of February, 2024

¶6

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

¶7

MA No.16/24 in OASR No.1796/2022 (Edrt -Dy. No.1881/2021)

¶8

State Bank of India Nolambur Branch HIG-I, Phase – 1, Plot No.65 4^th Main Road, Mogappair West Ambattur Industrial Estate Chennai – 600 037

¶9

Migrated to State Bank of India Rep. by its Chief Manager SME Centre, Ambattur 86 A & B, II Main Road, Ambattur Industrial Estate Chennai – 600 058 ....Petitioner

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

M/s Kimichi Corner Rep. by its Proprietor Sindhuja K 169, 8^th Main Road, Nolambur, Mogappair West Chennai – 600 037

¶12

Sindhuja K 169, 8^th Main Road Nolambur, Mogappair West Chennai – 600 037 ….Respondents

¶13

Counsel for Petitioner bank : M/s P.H. Vinodh Pandian

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This MA is filed by the Petitioner / Applicant Bank for condonation of delay of

¶16

215 days in re-presenting the Original Application after complying with the office objections.

¶17

MA No.16/24 in OASR No.1796/22

¶18

¶19

01.02.2024

¶20

It is the case of the petitioner / applicant bank that the objections were duly contemplated to be complied upon, however due to administrative reasons, applicant bank could not comply with the same within the time granted by this Tribunal, which was neither willful nor wanton. Hence, there was delay in processing the returns and the OA was re-presented with a delay of 215 days and petitioner bank prayed for condonation of the same.

¶21

On perusal of records, it is seen that this is an OA filed for recovery of a total sum of Rs.31,48,292/- due in respect of Term Loan facility together with future interest at the rate of 11.55% 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 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.

¶22

However, in the circumstances, this MA is allowed on the condition that the subject of levy of interest for the defaulted period (215 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

¶23

MA No.16/24 in OASR No.1796/22

¶24

¶25

01.02.2024

¶26

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

¶27

the Tribunal.

¶28

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

¶29

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, corrected, signed and processed through E-drt on this the 01^st day of February, 2024)

¶30

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

State Bank of India v. Kimchi Corner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Kimchi Corner

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

S Ganesh Prabhu versus Canara Bank

Union Bank of India versus AutoTricks Pvt. Ltd. And Four Others

P a Footwear Private Limited versus LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

State Bank of India versus M/S S S Motors Rep by Partners v Selvi

K Jaganathan versus Indian Bank

M s Thiru Travel Service versus M s Omkara Assets Reconstruction Company Limited