Allowed

Karnataka Bank Limited v. Stos Cartons

DRT27 Mar 2025MA/257/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an application to condone a 108-day delay in re-presenting an Original Application for money recovery. The delay was attributed to the losing of the case file by the applicant's counsel who had departed for overseas, despite the affidavit submitting plausible reasons.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 108 days in re-presentation of the Original Application is condoned. MA allowed subject to payment of Rs. 6,000/- and filing compliance report.

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Stos Cartons — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

MA 257/24 in OA Dy. No.3522/2023

¶2

01.04.2025

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 01^st day of April, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

M.A. No.257 of 2024 in O.A. Dy. No.3522 of 2023

¶8

Karnataka Bank Limited Asset Recovery Management Branch Chennai

¶9

….Applicant

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

M/s Stos Cartons

¶12

Represented by its Proprietor

¶13

Mr. A.S. Manikandan

¶14

13, Nadaipadhai Street

¶15

Kundrathur, Chennai – 600 069

¶16

Mr. A.S. Manikandan

¶17

S/o A.S. Santhanam

¶18

13, Nadaipadhai Street

¶19

Kundrathur, Chennai – 600 069

¶20

Mrs. Padmapriya M W/o Mr. A.S. Manikandan

¶21

13, Nadaipadhai Street

¶22

Kundrathur, Chennai – 600 069 ….Defendants

¶23

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶24

Counsel for Applicant : M/s Ramalingam & Associates

¶25

: - ORDER ON MA NO.79 OF 2025- :

¶26

The present MA is filed by applicant bank praying to condone delay

¶27

of 108 days in re-presentation of OA.

¶28

The Original Application is filed by the Petitioner/Applicant Bank

¶29

against the Defendants, seeking main relief to order the Defendant Nos.1

¶30

MA 257/24 in OA Dy. No.3522/2023

¶31

¶32

01.04.2025

¶33

to 3 jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.52,92,439.05p (Rupees Fifty Two Lakhs Ninety Two Thousand Four Hundred and Thirty Nine and Five Paise only) due as on 26.04.2023 with further interest and costs.

¶34

In the affidavit of Mr. S. Jayaharan, Junior advocate of the counsel on record for applicant bank, it is submitted that the OA has been returned by the Registry on 30.10.2023 for certain queries and compliances within two weeks. However, during the first week of November, Mr. Ramesh, the counsel who was handling the case left the counsel’s office and went overseas. It is submitted that while vacating his place, the counsel had accidently misplaced the case bundle with other disposed matters, which could be retrieved after thorough search. Hence the delay of 108 days had occurred due to aforesaid reason and Hence applicant bank prayed for condoning the delay in re-presenting the OA.

¶35

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

¶36

As OA is filed for recovery of money due from borrower and applicant being a financial institution holding the public money under Trust, the recovery of which cannot be frustrated. Hence the Tribunal feels it apt to allow the MA.

¶37

MA 257/24 in OA Dy. No.3522/2023

¶38

¶39

01.04.2025

¶40

In the circumstances, delay is condoned, MA stands allowed, subject to payment of cost of Rs.6,000/- to the DRT and DRAT Bar Association, Chennai on or before 11.04.2025 by the applicant and to file the payment of compliance report before the Registrar Court on 16.04.2025.

¶41

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.

¶42

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

¶43

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 01^st day of April, 2025)

Karnataka Bank Limited v. Stos Cartons

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Bank Limited v. Stos Cartons

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syndicate Bank versus Kirusthu Doss

State Bank of India versus Saravanan

Uco Bank versus Lakshminarayanan

Union Bank of India versus M/S Gemini Shreewas Engineers Pvt. Ltd.

Indian Overseas Bank versus Shanthiram Engineering

Dkam Interior Pvt. Ltd. rep by its Director Mr B Baskar and another versus Indian Bank