Allowed

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

DRT21 Feb 2025MA/231/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In MA 231/24, the Chennai DRT allowed an application filed by City Union Bank Limited to condone a delay of 100 days in re-presenting its Original Application No. 12482/2022, subject to payment of costs and filing a compliance report within the stipulated time.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of 100 days delay in re-presenting the Original Application, subject to payment of Rs. 25,000/- costs and filing a compliance report.

City Union Bank Limited versus Ms Ufx Ventures Pvt… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | DRT (2025)

¶1

MA 231/24 in OA Dy. No.12482/2022

¶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

M.A. No.231 of 2024 in OA Dy. No.12482 of 2022 (OA Dy. No. 1351/2022)

¶8

City Union Bank Limited No.23, Pillaiyar Koil Street Near Thiruvateeswarar Temple Triplicane Chennai – 600 005

¶9

….Petitioner / Applicant -Vs-

¶10

M/s UFX Ventures Private Limited

¶11

Rep. by its Director

¶12

Mr. Usman Faheed, S/o Mr. Usman Fayaz

¶13

No.33/1, Wallajah Road Chepauk, Chennai – 600 002 & 09 others ….Respondents / Defendants

¶14

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶15

Counsel for Applicant : M/s R. Sivaraman

¶16

: - ORDER ON MA NO.231/2024- :

¶17

The present MA is filed by applicant bank praying to condone delay of 100 days in re-presenting the OA.

¶18

The Original Application is filed by the Petitioner/Applicant Bank against the Defendants, seeking main relief to order the Defendant Nos.1 to 10 jointly and severally, a sum of Rs.25,08,69,721/- (Rupees Twenty Five Crores Eight Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty One only) in respect of various loan facilities with further interest and costs.

¶19

In the affidavit of the Branch Manager of applicant bank it is submitted that the OA was returned for certain clarification regarding interest calculation in the statement of accounts. As applicant bank required time to peruse the records, in order to substantiate and clarify the same, which took some time and hence delay of

¶20

MA 231/24 in OA Dy. No.12482/2022

¶21

¶22

21.02.2025

¶23

100 days occurred, which is neither willful nor wanton. Hence applicant bank prayed

¶24

for condoning the delay of 100 days in re-presenting the OA.

¶25

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

¶26

Admittedly, it is seen from the Scrutiny sheet that the OA was filed on 16.11.2022, after scrutiny Registry had returned the OA on 30.12.2022 for clarification in statement of accounts granting four weeks time. However, the OA was re-presented only on 08.05.2023. Registry had scrutinized the case and again returned on 19.06.2023 noting that the office objections were are not fully complied and that there is a delay of 100 days in re-presentation, MA to be filed and three weeks time was granted for compliance. Again case was re-presented on 23.11.2023, which was taken up by the Registry for scrutiny on 23.04.2024, wherein it is noted that office objections were fully complied with, however Original documents to be produced for verification and MA for condonation of delay of 100 days has been filed by applicant bank

¶27

As per the then prevailing procedure for verification of original documents before numbering of OA, Registry had returned the OA for production of original documents on 25.04.2024. Again the case was re-presented on 23.09.2024, when application filed for condonation of delay of 100 days was numbered as MA No.231/2024.

¶28

The applicant bank’s counsel has filed MA without any proper justification for the delay in re-presentation as the office objection was only with regard to clarification in statement of accounts. However, as OA is filed for recovery of money due from borrower and applicant being a financial institution holding the public money

¶29

MA 231/24 in OA Dy. No.12482/2022

¶30

¶31

21.02.2025

¶32

under Trust, the recovery of which cannot be frustrated. Hence the Tribunal feels it apt to allow the MA.

¶33

In the circumstances, delay is condoned, MA stands allowed, subject to payment of costs of Rs.25,000/- 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 07.03.2025 by the applicant bank and to file the payment of compliance report before the Registrar Court on 11.03.2025.

¶34

8 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.

¶35

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

¶36

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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

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

Canara Bank versus Ms Penta Cut Tools And Four Others

City Union Bank Limited versus Baranidharan