Partly allowed

Tamilnadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v. Mr C Bethuraj And Other

DRT21 Feb 2025MA/102/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Income Tax Appeal and banking dispute involving the restoration of an application dismissed for default due to administrative delays. The Tribunal allowed the re-filing of the application but imposed conditions regarding litigation costs and exempting defendants from interest during the delay period under reliance on prior High Court judgments.

What did the court decide?

Recovery application restored subject to payment of Rs.3,000/- costs and waiver of interest for 96-day delay period in final adjudication.

Tamilnadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. versus Mr C… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

MAs 204/22 & 102/25 in TA No.29/2023

¶2

21.02.2025

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 21^st day of February, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

Misc. Application Nos. 204/24 & 102/25 in TA No.29 of 2023

¶8

The Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Limited Chennai ….Petitioner / Applicant -Vs-

¶9

Mr. C. Bethuraj S/o Thiru Chinnamani

¶10

Sole Proprietor M/s Sri Vinayaga Star Electrics Plot No.9, Raja’s Garden Main Road Chettiyar Agaram Chennai – 600 077 & Another .….Respondents/Defendants

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

: -ORDER ON MAs 204/24 & 102/25-:

¶13

MA 204/24 is filed by applicant bank praying to condone delay of 96 days in filing restoration petition and MA 102/25 is filed to restore TA, which was dismissed for default on 22.03.2024.

¶14

The Original Application is filed by the Petitioner/Applicant Bank against the Defendants, seeking main relief to order the Defendants pay a sum of Rs.64,99,026/- (Rupees Sixty Four Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand and Twenty Six only) together with future interest @ 17.50% p.a. with monthly rests and costs.

¶15

The Applicant Bank has filed the present petitions i.e., MA No. 204/24 & 102/25 along with affidavit of Sh. R.S. Mathan Karthik, Senior Manager of applicant

¶16

MAs 204/22 & 102/25 in TA No.29/2023

¶17

¶18

21.02.2025

¶19

institution seeking to condone delay of 96 days in filing restoration petition and to restore OA which was dismissed for default on 22.03.2024.

¶20

It is submitted by applicant bank that the OA was posted for rectification of Proof Affidavit on 22.03.2024 as last chance. Due to change in administration, there was change in the authorized signatory to sign / attest the documents for compliance. As the applicant could not re-present the proof affidavit and documents despite availing substantial adjournments, OA came to be dismissed for default on 22.03.2024. Due to administrative reason, applicant could not file the restoration petition immediately. Hence the delay of 96 days occurred, which is neither willful nor wanton but only due to the aforesaid reason. Thus submitting, applicant prayed for condonation of delay and restoration of TA.

¶21

Heard and perused the records of the case .

¶22

The applicant, being a financial institution has filed the present restoration petition for recovery of a sum of Rs.64,99,026/-along with interest and for sale of mortgaged properties. It is seen that the applicant has not re-presented and processed the Proof Affidavit and Documents, despite availing substantial adjournments. Accordingly, OA came to be dismissed for default and nonprosecution on 22.03.2024.

¶23

In view of the fact that the bank being a financial institution is the custodian of the public money held under trust, the Tribunal relying on the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madras (At Madurai) in the judgment of V.P. Rajula -Vs.- K.J. Sakadeva Raja reported in LAWS (MAD)-2020-8-441 feels it apt to condone the delay and restore the OA and give last opportunity to applicant to adduce their evidence along with documents.

¶24

MAs 204/22 & 102/25 in TA No.29/2023

¶25

¶26

21.02.2025

¶27

Accordingly, MA Nos. 204/24 & 102/25 stands allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.3,000/- to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services R Buildings, High Court Campus, A.D, N Fort Rd, Parrys, George Town, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 104 on or before 06.03.2025 by the applicant bank and to file the payment of compliance report before the Registrar Court on 10.03.2025.

¶28

Further, the Tribunal, placing reliance on the judgment supra , directs that in case if applicant bank succeeds in the OA, applicant bank shall not claim interest for the said period of 96 days from the defendants and file a memo of calculation at the time of adjudication of OA claim. The copy of this order be placed in the OA enabling to claim the exemption of interest at the time of final adjudication of OA.

¶29

In case of the applicant complying with the order, OA stands restored to file for processing of proof affidavit and documents before the Registrar’s Court on 10.03.2025. It is clarified that in case if the applicant bank fails to comply with the conditional order above, MAs stand dismissed automatically without there being any need to pass separate order.

¶30

Sd/(S.V. GOWRAMMA) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI

¶31

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 21^st day of February, 2025)

Tamilnadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v. Mr C Bethuraj And Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tamilnadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v. Mr C Bethuraj And Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Punjab National Bank versus Ms Sai Coumputer and Stationery

R R and Co. versus Union Bank of India

Mrs B Bhuvana and R Guru Abishek versus Punjab National Bank

Canara Bank versus Ms Penta Cut Tools And Four Others

City Union Bank Limited versus Baranidharan

Canara Bank versus M/S Saravana Oil Stores