Allowed

Bank of Maharashtra v. Janarthanam

DRT29 Aug 2025MA/245/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal condoned a 225-day delay by the Bank of Maharashtra in re-filing an Original Application for debt recovery, relying on a High Court judgment distinguishing the bank's custodial responsibility of public funds. The application was admitted conditionally.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of 225 days delay in re-presenting the OA, conditional upon payment of Rs.2,000/- and filing compliance.

Bank of Maharashtra versus Janarthanam — DRT (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶3

Dated this the 29^th day of August 2025

¶4

SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶5

M.A. No.245 of 2024 in OA Dy. No.503/2023

¶6

Bank of Maharashtra Having one of its branch offices at No.8/9, Bharathi Salai, Mogapair West Ambattur Represented by its Authorised Signatory Chief Manager Asset Recovery Branch, Bank of Maharashtra, Zonal office No.4 Sivananda Road, T Nagar

¶7

Chennai – 600017. …Applicant

¶8

-Vs-

¶9

Shri B P Janarthanam S/O B Porumainathan No.123, Harrington Road Appaswamy Street, Chetpet Chennai – 600031.

¶10

Shri B Porumainathan S/O Shri Balan No.123, Harrington Road Appaswamy Street, Chetpet Chennai – 600031.

¶11

Smt P Jayamani W/O Shri B. Porumainathan 123, Harrington Road Appaswamy Street, Chetpet Chennai – 600031. …Defendants

¶12

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. Shree Law Services

¶14

¶15

ORDER IN MA No. 245/2024

¶16

MA No. 245 of 2024 is taken up. This is an application filed by applicant bank for condonation of delay of 225 days in re-presenting the OA.

¶17

It is submitted by applicant bank that the present OA was filed for recovery of sum of Rs.21,39,672/- together with interest and costs. The OA was returned by the Registry on 20.04.2023 for complying with the returns by granting four weeks time. It is submitted that although the counsel for applicant bank had sent an email to the Branch regarding the queries, the concerned officer who was looking after the account of the defendants did not check the email, which resulted in non-communication to the Advocate regarding compliances. In the meanwhile the file relating to the captioned account has been transferred to the Asset Recovery Branch in zonal office of the Bank of Maharashtra at No. 4 Sivagnanam salai, T. Nagar Chennai 600017. Due to the aforesaid chain of events, applicant bank could not give instructions to their counsel for effecting the compliances. In the process, there is a delay 225 days in representing the OA which is neither willful nor wanton, but only due to aforesaid reasons. Therefore, the applicant bank prayed for condonation of delay of 225 days in representing the OA.

¶18

Perused the Affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicant bank

¶19

and the records of the case.

¶20

¶21

As OA is filed for recovery of money due from borrower and 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 give opportunity to applicant to prosecute their case.

¶22

Accordingly, MA No.245/25 stands allowed and delay is condoned,

¶23

subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority on or before 16.09.2025 by the applicant and to file the compliance report before the Registry.

¶24

In case of the applicant complying with the order and filing compliance memo, 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 stand dismissed automatically without there being any need to pass separate order.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

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

¶27

(Dictated to Steno (Deepika), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 29^th day of August, 2025)

Bank of Maharashtra v. Janarthanam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Maharashtra v. Janarthanam

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

Bank of Baroda versus Samuel Jabakumar

Idbi Bank versus Govindasamy

Canara Bank versus M/S kumaran Oil Mills

Indian Bank versus M s Shree Sai Enterprises

Canara Bank versus Ravi

Hdfc Bank versus M s Crimson Foods