Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Padma Shekar

DRT28 Feb 2024MA/35/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the Bank's Motion Application seeking condonation of a 420-day delay in re-presenting an Original Application. The Court conditioned the allowance on a future review of interest liability to the borrower for the delay period, citing the bank's inaction during the delay.

What did the court decide?

Motion Application allowed on condition that interest liability for the delayed period shall be considered at the time of issuance of the Recovery Certificate.

Bank of Baroda versus Padma Shekar — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2024)

¶1

MA 35 of 2024 in OASR 10923/2020

¶2

28.02.2024

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 28^th day of February, 2024

¶6

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

¶7

M.A. No.35/24 in OASR No.10923/2020

¶8

M/s. Bank of Baroda, (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank), Rep by its Chief Manager, No.25, 3^rd Avenue Indira Nagar, Chennai-600 020. ….Petitioner

¶9

-Vs-

¶10

Mrs. Padma Shekar W/o. Veera Shekar, No.5, 3^rd Main Road, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai-600 020.

¶11

Mr. Veera Shekar, S/o. Muthuraman, No.5, 3^rd Main Road, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai-600 020.

¶12

Mr. M. Vinayagharaaj, S/o. Muthuraman, No.1, Land Marvel Apartments, II Floor, 1^st Street, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600 041. …Respondents

¶13

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶14

Counsel for Petitioner : M/s. R. Sreedhar

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This MA is filed by the Petitioner / Applicant Bank for condonation of delay of 420

¶17

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

¶18

MA 35 of 2024 in OASR 10923/2020

¶19

¶20

28.02.2024

¶21

It is the case of the petitioner / applicant bank that the objections were duly contemplated to be complied upon but however,due to impact of Covid-19 and frequent transfers of officials at the Branch level, applicant bank could not represent the OA within time and hence prayed for condonation of delay of 420 days in re-presenting the OA.

¶22

On perusal of records, it is seen that this is an OA filed for recovery of sum of Rs.2,56,37,906.57p 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 (420 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 35 of 2024 in OASR 10923/2020

¶25

¶26

28.02.2024

¶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

Bank of Baroda v. Padma Shekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Padma Shekar

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

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited versus Ms Deepam Dtp

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited versus Ms Smart Colour Pro

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited versus Ms Greenway Traders

Santhosh Abraham versus Religare Finvest Limited

Idbi Bank versus M/s. Appu Hotels Limited

Sivabalan T versus Icici Bank Limited