The Debts Recovery Tribunal condoned a delay of 108 days in presenting an Original Application filed by the applicant bank for debt recovery, subject to the payment of court costs and filing a compliance report.
Condonation of delay of 108 days in presenting OA, conditional upon payment of costs and compliance report.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI
Dated this the 19th day of September 2025
PRESENT : SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer
M.A. No.256 of 2025 in OA Dy. No.5307/2023
Union Bank of India Hong Kong Branch 806-807, 9 Queen’s Road Central, Hong Kong, Rep. by Mr. Ramkumar Branch Manager of Union Bank of India, Chennai Main Branch, No. 139, Broadway Chennai – 108. ...Applicant -Vs-
Mr. Nachiappan Senthil S/o N. Murugappa Chettiar Prestige Bella Vista Poonamellee High Road, Iyyappanthangal Chennai – 600 056. ….Defendant
Counsels on record / appeared:
Counsel for Applicant : M/s. V. Siva Kumar
ORDER IN MA No. 256/2025
recovery of USD$ 2167479.43 i.e., a sum of Rs.18,04,53,499.58P-
2
together with interest and costs. It is submitted that the OA was returned by the Registry on 08.08.2025. Due to requirement of documents, particularly Power of Attorney and clarification sought by the Registry in the statement of Account as well as additional documents, OA could not be re-presented within the time granted by this Tribunal, which is neither wilful nor wanton, but only due to aforesaid reasons. Therefore, the applicant bank prayed for condonation of delay of 108 days in representing the OA.
Perused the Affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicant bank
and the records of the case.
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.
3
to comply with the conditional order above, MA stand dismissed automatically without there being any need to pass separate order.
(S.V. GOWRAMMA) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI
(Dictated to Steno (Deepika), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 19th day of September, 2025)
1 issue framed by the court
whether the delay of 108 days in re-presenting the Original Application should be condoned.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
V.P. Rajula -Vs.- K.J. Sakadeva RajaRelied on¶19
V.P. Rajula -Vs.- K.J. Sakadeva Raja reported in LAWS (MAD)-2020-8-441
Union Bank of India Hong Kong Branch
Mr. Nachiappan Senthil
S.V. Gowramma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
