Allowed

Union Bank of India v. G Madhan Raj

DRT26 Feb 2024MA/32/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the application for condonation of delay by Union Bank of India, citing document misplacement during branch transfer. It directed that claim for default interest for the delayed period be considered at the recovery certificate stage.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of 130-day delay allowed; direction to consider levy of interest for the delayed period at the stage of issuing the Recovery Certificate.

Union Bank of India versus G Madhan Raj — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

MA 32/24 in OASR No.1011/2023

¶2

26.02.2024

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 26^th day of February, 2024

¶6

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

¶7

M.A. No.32/24 in OASR No.1011/2023

¶8

M/s. Union Bank of India, (Formerly Andhra Bank), Retail Credit Branch, No.153, LIC Building Ground Floor, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. ….Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

Mr. G. Madhan Raj, S/o. Gunasekar, No.7, 8^th Block, st Main Road, Muthamizh Nagar, Kodungaiyur, Chennai- 600 118. 2. Ms. J.P. Kavitha, W/o. G. Madhan Raj, No.7, 8^th Block, 1^st Main Road, Muthamizh Nagar, Kodungaiyur, Chennai- 600 118. …Respondents

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Petitioner : M/s. R. Gowthama Narayanan.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This MA is filed by the Petitioner / Applicant Bank for condonation of delay of 130

¶15

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

¶16

It is the case of the petitioner / applicant bank that the objections were duly

¶17

contemplated to be complied upon but however, as the account was transferred from

¶18

MA 32/24 in OASR No.1011/2023

¶19

¶20

26.02.2024

¶21

Chennai Anna Salai Branch to Asset Recovery Management Branch at Chennai after filing of the above original application, due to which few documents were misplaced and could be traced out after long search. Hence there was a delay of 130 days in representing the above OA, which is neither willful nor wanton and hence prayed for condonation of delay.

¶22

On perusal of records, it is seen that this is an OA filed for recovery of sum of Rs.34,76,066.73p together with future interest 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 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.

¶23

However, in the circumstances, this MA is allowed on the condition that the subject of levy of interest for the defaulted period (130 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.

¶24

MA 32/24 in OASR No.1011/2023

¶25

¶26

26.02.2024

¶27

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

¶28

(Dictated to Steno (Saranya), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced in open court on this the 28^th day of February, 2024)

¶29

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

Union Bank of India v. G Madhan Raj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. G Madhan Raj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radhika R versus Indian Overseas Bank

M s Richros Builders versus Uco Bank

Corporation Bank versus Marigot Agro Private Limited

Bank of India versus Jaidev Impex

State Bank of India versus M/S Incense World

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited versus Ms Greenway Traders