Allowed

Uco Bank v. M/S.Sri Krishna Leather Footwear

DRT3 Sept 2024MA/54/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed a miscellaneous application for condoning delay as the underlying matter was settled. The tribunal disposed of the original application upon observing that the bank received the full settlement amount agreed upon by the parties.

What did the court decide?

Allowed MA for condonation of delay; disposed of Original Application as settled; ordered return of original documents to the bank.

Uco Bank versus M/S.Sri Krishna Leather Footwear — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2024)

¶1

MA No.54/24 in TA No.1999/23

¶2

03.09.2024

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 03^rd day of September, 2024

¶6

Present: SHRI A. S. JAYACHANDRA Presiding Officer (In – charge)

¶7

MISC APPLICATION No.54 of 2024 IN

¶8

TRANSFERRED APPLICATION No. 1999 of 2023

¶9

(Originally filed before DRT-II, Chennai and numbered as OA No.498/2017 and thereafter transferred to this Tribunal and re-numbered as TA No.1999/2023)

¶10

M/s. UCO Bank, Velachery Branch,

¶11

Chennai – 600 042.

¶12

Represented by its Senior Manager

¶13

……. Applicant

¶14

-Vs-

¶15

M/s. Sri Krishna Leather & Footwear,

¶16

Rep. by its Partners, No.1, N.S. Krishna Street, Easwaran Nagar, Pammal, Chennai – 600 075.

¶17

2. K. Kathiravan S/o. Kalyana Sundaram Partner – M/s. Sri Krishna Leather & Footwear, No.1, N.S. Krishna Street, Easwaran Nagar, Pammal, Chennai – 600 075.

¶18

R. Radhakrishnan S/o. Rajagopal, No.1, N.S. Krishna Street, Easwaran Nagar, Pammal, Chennai – 600 075.

¶19

P. Srinivasan, S/o. Panchapakasan No.1, N.S. Krishna Street, Easwaran Nagar, Pammal, Chennai – 600 075.

¶20

MA No.54/24 in TA No.1999/23

¶21

¶22

03.09.2024

¶23

K. Pennarasi W/o. K. Kathiravan, No.5/6, C. R. Ramakrishnapuram, 1^st Floor, Phase – III, Chandrasekar Building, Virugambakkam Chennai – 600 092. ……Defendants

¶24

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶25

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. Kvp. Deepak Raj Counsel for Defendants : M/s. Chennai Law Firm

¶26

PROCEEDINGS DATED 03.09.2024

¶27

MA/54/2024 -- Ld. counsel for the applicant submits that the delay of 468 days in

¶28

filing the restoration petition may be condoned for the reasons stated in the affidavit filed by the applicant bank.

¶29

Since the Ld. counsel submits that the matter is settled for which he filed the full satisfaction Memo, the MA/54/2024 stands allowed.

¶30

TA is restored on record and taken up for orders of full satisfaction memo .

¶31

Orders in TA/1999/2023 (Old No. OA/498/2017)

¶32

Perused the records and the Full Satisfaction Memo dated 27.08.2024,

¶33

wherein it is observed that:-

¶34

OA is filed for recovery of Rs.92,20,631 along with interest.

¶35

In the Memo filed on 30.08.2024 duly signed by the AR of the Bank, it is reported that the defendant settled the claims by complying OTS offered at Rs.45,00,000/- by way of three installments on various dates. The applicant bank is in receipt of the entire amount agreed between the parties. The claim is thus fully satisfied.

¶36

MA No.54/24 in TA No.1999/23

¶37

¶38

03.09.2024

¶39

The bank is satisfied with the realization towards the claims made in

¶40

the OA.

¶41

In view of the above, the OA stands disposed as settled outside the Tribunal. Original documents [Ex A01 to Ex. A 62] be returned as per Form 11 filed, if found on record.

¶42

The original documents may be returned to the bank upon acknowledgement.

¶43

Copies be communicated to parties concerned.

¶44

Thus, the OA stands disposed of.

¶45

Sd/(A. S. JAYACHANDRA)

¶46

PRESIDING OFFICER (In-charge)

¶47

(Dictated to Steno, who typed in the system, corrected, signed and pronounced in Open Court, on this

¶48

03^rd day of September, 2024)

Uco Bank v. M/S.Sri Krishna Leather Footwear

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uco Bank v. M/S.Sri Krishna Leather Footwear

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

Mr Rakesh Jagannath Jambhale versus Dombivli Nagari Sahakari Bank Limited

Standard Chartered Bank versus Animesh Silk Mill Private Limited

State Bank of India versus Sapna

Roshan Lal versus State Bank of India

Ms Simran Enterprises versus Idfc Bank Limited

Kabilan Adhi versus State Bank of India