Allowed

State Bank of India v. M s Infant Tech Industrial

DRT18 Mar 2024MA/31/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an application for condonation of delay in re-presenting an Original Application. It noted the delay was due to the counsel's illness but imposed a condition regarding future interest claims for the defaulted period.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of 99-day delay allowed on condition that interest liability for the default period be considered at the time of issuing Recovery Certificate.

State Bank of India versus M s Infant Tech Industrial — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

MA No.31/2024 in OASR No.6259/2022

¶2

18.03.2024

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 18^th day of March, 2024

¶6

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

¶7

MA No. 31/24 in OASRNo.6259/2022

¶8

M/s.STATE BANK OF INDIA Rep. By its Chief Manager, SMEC, Ambattur Branch, No. 86A & B, 2^nd Main Road, Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai – 600 058.

¶9

.....Petitioner

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

M/S. INFANT TECH INDUSTRIAL Represented by its proprietor A. Mariajegasti No.8, Kamarajar Street, Gopal Naicker Nagar Padi, Chennai - 600 050. 2. A. MARIAJEGASTI, W/o. Anthonisamy, No. 56, Jupiter Street, Mathiyazhagan Nagar, Padi, Chennai - 600 050. Also at No. 81/1 Araikkarai Street, Kokkalady, Pamani Thiruthuraipoondi, Thiruvarur - 614 711. .....Respondents Counsels on record / appeared: Counsel for Petitioner : Sh. G. Sudhakar

¶12

MA No.31/2024 in OASR No.6259/2022

18.03.2024

O R D E R

This MA is filed by the Petitioner / Applicant Bank for condonation of delay of 99 days in re-presenting the Original Application after complying with the office objections.

¶17

It is the case of petitioner applicant bank that the defects were duly contemplated to be complied upon, but however as the counsel on record was undergoing treatment for ulcer problem, since March 2022 and was unwell for quite some time, OA could not be re-presented within the time granted by this Tribunal, which is neither wilful nor wanton. Hence petitioner bank prayed for condonation of delay of 99 days in representing the OA.

¶18

On perusal of records, it is seen that this is an OA filed for recovery of sum of Rs.54,19,192/- due as on 28.03.2022 together with future interest from the 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 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 (99 days) which is condoned at this

¶20

MA No.31/2024 in OASR No.6259/2022

¶21

¶22

18.03.2024

¶23

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.

¶24

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

¶25

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced in open court on this the 18^th day of March, 2024)

¶26

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

State Bank of India v. M s Infant Tech Industrial

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. M s Infant Tech Industrial

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

Bank of Maharashtra versus Vinod Kumar Chaturvedi

The Federal Bank Limited versus Sri. Johney @ John Chacko

Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank versus Venkappa Bhimappa Lamani (Since deceased by his legal Representatives)

Punjab National Bank versus Ms Om Anand Enterprises

Atma Ram versus the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited

Narinder Singh versus the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited