Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Mr Mohammed Rahamatulla

DRT27 Feb 2025MA/12/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal condoned a 339-day delay by the applicant bank in re-presenting an Original Application. The delay was excused due to internal oversight and transfer of the loan account, allowing the applicant to pay a cost and file a compliance report.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay of 339 days in re-presenting the Original Application, subject to payment of cost and filing of compliance report.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Mr Mohammed Rahamatulla — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

MA 12/25 in OA Dy. No.1417/2022

¶2

27.02.2025

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 27^th day of February, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

M.A. No.12 of 2025 in O.A. Dy.No. 1417 of 2022

¶8

Bank of Maharashtra Rep. by its Authorised Signatory Asset Recovery Branch Bank of Maharashtra Zonal office, No.4, Sivananda Road, T. Nagar Chennai – 600 017 ….Petitioner / Applicant -Vs-

¶9

Shri. Mohammed Rahmattulah MRT Leather 5 A Patnool Sardar Jung Street Periamet

¶10

Chennai – 600 003

¶11

Smt. Shakeela Banu W/o Sri Mohammed Rahmattulah 38, SPT Nagar, 2^nd Street Paraipati, Begampur Dindigul – 624 002 ….Respondents / Defendants

¶12

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : M/s Shree Law Services

¶14

: - ORDER ON MA NO.12 OF 2025- :

¶15

The present MA is filed by applicant bank praying to condone delay of 339

¶16

days in re-presenting the OA.

¶17

The Original Application is filed by the Petitioner/Applicant Bank against the Defendants, seeking main relief to order the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.2,09,53,965.18p (Rupees Two Crores Nine Lakhs

¶18

MA 12/25 in OA Dy. No.1417/2022

¶19

¶20

27.02.2025

¶21

Fifty Three Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty Five and Eighteen Paise only) together with further interest and costs.

¶22

In the affidavit of the Chief Manager and Authorised Signatory of applicant bank, it is submitted that the Registry had returned the OA for certain compliances on 03.01.2023, granting four weeks time. Although the counsel record for the applicant bank had sent an e-mail to the branch, the same was not checked by the concerned official due to oversight. In the meanwhile, the loan account was transferred to Asset Recovery Branch in Zonal Office of the Bank. Due to aforesaid chain of events, instructions could not be given to the counsel for re-presentation of the OA, due to which delay of 339 days has occurred, which is neither willful nor wanton. Thus submitting, applicant bank prayed for condonation of delay of 339 days in representation of OA.

¶23

Heard the arguments of the applicant’s counsel and perused the records of the case.

¶24

As OA is filed for recovery of money due from borrower and applicant being a financial institution holding the public money under Trust, the recovery of which cannot be frustrated. Hence the Tribunal feels it apt to allow the MA.

¶25

In the circumstances, delay is condoned, MA stands allowed, subject to payment of cost of Rs.1000/- to the DRT & DRAT Bar Association on or before 14.03.2025 by the applicant and to file the payment of compliance report before the Registrar Court on 17.03.2025.

¶26

MA 12/25 in OA Dy. No.1417/2022

¶27

¶28

27.02.2025

¶29

In case of the applicant complying with the order, Registry is directed to number the OA, if otherwise found to be in order. It is clarified that, in case, if the applicant bank fails to comply with the conditional order above, MA stands 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 27^th day of February, 2025)

Bank of Maharashtra v. Mr Mohammed Rahamatulla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Mr Mohammed Rahamatulla

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

Union Bank of India versus Mrs Sudha Sundaravaradhan And Another

Alphamed Labs and others versus Bank of Baroda

S Muthukumaran versus Canara Bank

Bank of Maharashtra versus M s Vpm Housing

Laxmi Vilas Bank versus M S Southern Textile Home Fashions Pvt. Ltd.

Laxmi Vilas Bank versus M S Southern Textile Home Fashions Pvt. Ltd.