Allowed

Andhra Bank v. Mr P Murugesan

DRT24 Feb 2025MA/21/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order condones the 222-day delay in restoring an Original Application dismissed for default by a bank. The court directs payment of costs to the Bar Association and waives future interest charges for the delay period if the bank succeeds.

What did the court decide?

Conditional restoration of the Original Application to file upon payment of costs; waiver of interest for the delay period if the bank succeeds.

Andhra Bank versus Mr P Murugesan — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

MAs 21/25 & 91/25 in OA No.169/2019

¶2

24.02.2025

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 24^th day of February, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

Misc. Application Nos. 21/25 & 91/25 in

¶8

OA No.169 of 2019

¶9

Union Bank of India (Erstwhile Andhra Bank) Mount Road Branch Old No.95, New No.137 Anna Salai (Mount Road) Chennai – 600 002 ….Petitioner / Applicant -Vs-

¶10

P. Murugesan S/o M. Ponnusamy No.C182, East Arikarai Villivakkam, Chennai – 600 049 & Another .….Respondents/Defendants

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : Mr. T. Narayanasamy

¶13

: -ORDER ON MAs 267/24 & 103/25-:

¶14

MA 21/25 is filed by applicant bank praying to condone delay of 222 days in filing restoration petition and MA 91/25 is filed to restore OA, which was dismissed for default on 05.09.2022.

¶15

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.13,81,986.40p (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Eighty One Lakhs Nine Hundred and Eight Six and Forty Paise only) together with future interest @ 8.50% p.a. with monthly rests and costs.

¶16

MAs 21/25 & 91/25 in OA No.169/2019

¶17

¶18

24.02.2025

¶19

The Applicant Bank has filed the present petitions i.e., MA No. 21/25 & 91/25 along with affidavit of Ms. Muthumeenakshi, Chief Manager, Union Bank of India seeking to condone delay of 222 days in filing restoration petition and to restore OA which was dismissed for default on 05.09.2022.

¶20

It is submitted by applicant bank that the amendment due to merger of Andhra Bank with Union Bank of India was allowed vide proceedings dated 04.02.2022 and case was posted to 16.03.2022 for filing amended copy of OA after carrying out necessary amendment and for filing proof of service of notice to defendants. As there was no representation on behalf of applicant bank on 16.03.2022 and neither AOS nor amended OA was filed by applicant bank, OA came to be dismissed on 16.03.2022.

¶21

Subsequently, MA No.46/22 was filed for restoration of OA, which came to be allowed on 28.07.2022 and OA was restored to file. However, when the case was taken up on next hearing date, i.e., 05.09.2022, it was noted by the Tribunal that power of attorney of Erstwhile Corporation Bank was only available for the deponent, contrary to the submissions of Ld. counsel for applicant bank made during earlier hearing that power of attorney of deponent of the present bank is available. Hence the OA was once again dismissed on 05.09.2022 for default and non-prosecution.

¶22

It is submitted by applicant bank that the present deponent is having power of attorney of Corporation Bank, as Corporation bank is merged with Union Bank of India, as such the deponent is competent to represent Union Bank of India. It is further submitted by applicant bank that during the pendency of OA, applicant bank had sold the mortgaged property for a sum of Rs.13,40,000/- to one V. Venkatesan under SARFAESI Act, which amount is duly credited to the borrower’s loan account.

¶23

MAs 21/25 & 91/25 in OA No.169/2019

¶24

¶25

24.02.2025

¶26

Due to closing work of the branches for the financial year ending 31.03.2023 and subsequent audit, restoration petition could not be filed within time. Hence the delay of 222 days occurred, which is neither willful nor wanton but only due to the aforesaid reason. Thus submitting, counsel prayed for condonation of delay and for restoration of OA.

¶27

Heard and perused the records of the case .

¶28

The applicant, being a financial institution has filed the present restoration petition for recovery of a sum of Rs.13,81,986.40p along with interest and for sale of mortgaged properties. It is seen that the applicant has not prosecuted the case diligently despite availing substantial adjournments. Accordingly, OA came to be dismissed for default and non-prosecution on 05.09.2022.

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶31

Accordingly, MA Nos.21/25 and 91/25 stands allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- to DRT and DRAT Bar Association, Chennai on or before 10.03.2025 by the applicant bank and to file the payment of compliance report before the Registrar Court on 13.03.2025.

¶32

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 222 days from the defendants and file a memo of calculation

¶33

MAs 21/25 & 91/25 in OA No.169/2019

¶34

24.02.2025

¶35

¶36

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.

¶37

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 13.03.2025. 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.

¶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 24^th day of February, 2025)

Andhra Bank v. Mr P Murugesan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Andhra Bank v. Mr P Murugesan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Canara Bank versus M/S Saravana Oil Stores

City Union Bank Limited versus Ms Ufx Ventures Pvt. Ltd.

Canara Bank versus Ms Penta Cut Tools And Four Others

Mrs Seerisha N versus the Authorized Officer Iifl Home Finance Ltd.

Bank of India versus Gunasundari

Andhra Bank versus Mr P Murugesan