Allowed

Indiabulls Asset Reconstruction Private Limited v. M/S Shristi Construction Quipments

DRT17 Feb 2025MA/15/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed petitions for condonation of delay and restoration of a Temporary Application dismissed for default. The court recognized the applicant as a financial institution custodian of public money and granted a last opportunity to comply with procedural requirements subject to payment of costs.

What did the court decide?

MAs 14/25 and 15/25 allowed; delay of 139 days condoned; OA restored subject to payment of Rs.25,000 costs and filing compliance report.

Indiabulls Asset Reconstruction Private Limited versus M/S Shristi… — Insurance | DRT (2025)

¶1

MA 14/25 & 15/25 in TA 1679/2023

¶2

17.02.2025

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 17^th day of February, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

M.A. No.14 of 2025 & 15 of 2025 in

¶8

T.A. No. 1679 of 2023

¶9

Indiabulls Asset Reconstruction Company Limited Rep. by its Manager Having registered office at Inidabulls Finance Centre, 9^th Floor Tower-1, Elphinstone Road Mumbai – 400 013

¶10

The Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited (ARCIL) Having registered office at 29, Senapati Bapat Marg Dadar (West) Mumbai – 400 028 …..Petitioners

¶11

-Vs-

¶12

M/s. Shristi Construction Equipments Rep. by Partner 11/3, Kambar Street, Thiruparankundram Madurai, Tamil Nadu – 625 006

¶13

Mrs. Elizabeth John W/o Mr. P.W. Geevar No.56, Maruthu Pandiar Street 5^th Bus Stop, Thiru Nagar Madurai – 625 006

¶14

Also at Mrs. Elizabeth John W/o Mr. P.W. Geevar Old No.2/436, New No.2/831 Balaji Avenue, A.N. Ezhumalai Salai Opposite to ATS Mandapam, Ayyappanthangal Chennai – 600 056 ….Respondents / Defendants

¶15

MA 14/25 & 15/25 in TA 1679/2023

¶16

¶17

17.02.2025

¶18

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶19

Counsel for Applicant : Sh. S. Parthasarathy

¶20

: - ORDER ON MAs NO.14/2025 & 15/2025 - :

¶21

MA No.14/25 is filed by applicant institution praying to condone delay of 139 days in filing restoration petition and MA No.15/25 is filed to restore TA, which was dismissed for default on 25.03.2024.

¶22

The Original Application is filed by the Petitioner/Applicant institution against the Defendants, seeking main relief to order the Defendants pay a sum of Rs.4,40,82,616.71p (Rupees Four Crores Forth Lakhs Eighty Two Thousand Six Hundred and Sixteen and Seven One Paise only) together with Interest @ 12.05% p.a. and costs.

¶23

The Applicant institution has filed the present petitions i.e., MA No.14/2025 and 15/2025 along with affidavit of Mr. J. Yuvek, Chief Manager, Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited (ARCIL) seeking to condone delay of 139 days in filing restoration petition and to restore OA which was dismissed for default on 25.03.2024.

¶24

It is submitted by applicant that OA was filed before DRT-II and numbered as 316 of 2019, which was subsequently transferred to this Tribunal due to bifurcation of jurisdiction. During the course of proceedings, as counsel for applicant bank was unable to appear for several hearings and take steps to comply the returns of proof affidavit, TA came to be dismissed on 25.03.2024. As the matter was listed in E-drt,

¶25

MA 14/25 & 15/25 in TA 1679/2023

¶26

¶27

17.02.2025

¶28

counsel was unable to appear on 25.03.2024. In the meanwhile, applicant had assigned the debt to M/s Indiabulls Asset Reconstruction Company Limited vide Assignment Agreement dated 31.10.2022. Hence the delay of 139 days occurred in taking steps to file necessary application, which is neither willful nor wanton but only due to the aforesaid reason. Thus submitting, counsel prayed for condonation of delay and also prayed for restoration of TA.

¶29

Heard and perused the records of the case .

¶30

The applicant, being a financial institution has filed the present restoration petition for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,40,82,616.71p along with interest and for sale of mortgaged properties. It is seen that the applicant has not taken steps to comply with the returns of PA and OD despite availing substantial adjournments. Accordingly, TA came to be dismissed for default on 25.03.2024.

¶31

In view of the fact that the applicant being a financial institution is the custodian of the public money held under trust, the Tribunal feels it apt to condone the delay and restore the OA and give last opportunity to applicant to adduce their evidence along with documents.

¶32

Accordingly, MA Nos.14/25 and 15/25 stands allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.25,000/- to the Tamil Nadu Legal Services Authority on or before 01.03.2025 by the applicant and to file the payment of compliance report before the Registrar Court on 03.03.2025.

¶33

MA 14/25 & 15/25 in TA 1679/2023

¶34

17.02.2025

¶35

¶36

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

¶37

separate order.

¶38

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

¶39

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 17^th day

¶40

of February, 2025)

Indiabulls Asset Reconstruction Private Limited v. M/S Shristi Construction Quipments

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indiabulls Asset Reconstruction Private Limited v. M/S Shristi Construction Quipments

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gowtham Raja versus Indo Star Capital Finance Limited

Kmadeshwaran versus State Bank of India

Sri Raja Rajeshwari Transport versus Indian Bank

Asset Reconstruction Company India Ltd. arcil in its capacity as trustee of Arcil Sbps I Trust repy by its authorized officer Yuvek J versus v Ismail and others

Yes Bank versus M s Win Star Marketing India Pvt. Ltd.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Star Sandas LLP