Allowed

lAKSHMI Vilas Bank v. M/S B R Jewellers

DRT3 Oct 2025MA/264/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT-III, Chennai allowed multiple MAs to condone significant delays in filing restoration and substitution petitions, restoring a trial application originally filed by a bank and now assigned to an Asset Reconstruction Company. The assignee was permitted to substitute the applicant in place of the original bank.

What did the court decide?

MAs allowed; TA restored; Assignee substituted as applicant; Applicant directed to file amended copy of TA.

lAKSHMI Vilas Bank versus M/S B R Jewellers — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2025)

¶1

MAs 264/25 to 267/25 in TA No.1581/2023

¶2

03.10.2025

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 03^rd day of October, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

M.A. Nos.264/25, 265/25, 266/25 & 267/25

¶8

¶9

T.A. No.1581 of 2023

¶10

M/s. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd., Branch Office at No. 560-562, 1G, 1^st Floor, Century Plaza Anna Salai, Thiru Vi Ka Kudiyiruppu Teynampet,

¶11

Chennai – 600 018. Rep. by its Authorised Officer

¶12

……Petitioner /

¶13

Proposed Applicant

¶14

DBS Bank

¶15

(Erstwhile Lakshmi Vilas Bank)

¶16

No.3, Plot No.780, Munuswamy Salai K K Nagar, Chennai – 600 078 ….Applicant

¶17

-Vs-

¶18

M/s BR Jewellers

¶19

(A Proprietorship concern with Proprietor Mr. L. Bhiyaram)

¶20

No.1181, Bangalore Main Road

¶21

Pappanchatram, Sembarambakkam Post

¶22

Poonamalle Taluk, Tiruvallur – 600 123

¶23

Mr. L. Bhiyaram

¶24

S/o Mr. Laburam

¶25

No.1298/2, Sy. No.380, Kamarajar Street Pappanchathiram Village

¶26

Poonamallee Taluk, Tiruvallur – 600 123

¶27

Mr. D. Nemichand Seervi S/o Mr. L. Dharmaram

¶28

No.4/84, Bangalore Highways Pazhanchur Madhura, Pappanchathiram Village Poonamallee Taluk, Tiruvallur – 600 123

¶29

MAs 264/25 to 267/25 in TA No.1581/2023

¶30

03.10.2025

¶31

¶32

Mr. L. Munnaram

¶33

S/o Mr. Laburam No.29/293, Arakonam Main Road Mealurkuppam Sriperumpudur – 602 105 ….Respondents /Defendants

¶34

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶35

Counsel for Petitioner : M/s L. Surya Associates

¶36

: - ORDER ON MA NOs.264/25, 265/25, 266/25 & 267/25- :

¶37

The Original Application is filed by the Erstwhile The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited, subsequently merged with DBS Bank India Limited, against the Defendants, seeking main relief to order the Respondents 1 to 4, who are Defendant Nos.1 to 4 to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.69,70,302.77p (Rupees Sixty Nine Lakhs Seventy Thousand Three Hundred and Two and Seventy Seven Paisa only) with further interest and costs.

¶38

The Petitioner has filed the present petitions i.e., MA No.264/25, 265/25, 266/25 & 267/25 along with affidavit of Chief Manager – Sh. J. Yuvek, seeking to condone delay of 335 days in filing restoration petition, to restore the TA which was dismissed for default on 25.04.2024, to condone delay of 852 days in filing substitution petition and to permit proposed applicant herein to be added as Assignee Applicant in place of applicant bank viz., the DBS Bank to conduct the TA No.1581/2023.

¶39

It is submitted that the OA No.729/2019 (before DRT-II) was initiated by The Lakhsmi Vilas Bank (since merged with DBS Bank India

¶40

MAs 264/25 to 267/25 in TA No.1581/2023

¶41

¶42

03.10.2025

¶43

Limited) which was subsequently transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.1581/2023. During the pendency of OA, the applicant bank has assigned the debts to M/s Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited vide Assignment Agreement dated 23.12.2022.

¶44

It is further submitted that subsequent to assignment, the applicant had taken huge time to hand over the case papers and previous counsel’s details to the petitioner / proposed applicant. Hence the case could not be prosecuted, which came to be dismissed for default and non-prosecution on 25.03.2024.

¶45

In the meanwhile, applicant bank had assigned various loan accounts including the subject Loan of respondents 1 to 4, who are defendants / borrowers of credit facilities from Erstwhile The Lakshmi

¶46

Vilas Bank Limited, which was merged with DBS Bank India Limited by way of an Assignment Agreement bearing Document No.104 / 2022 dated 23.12.2022.

¶47

It is the case of proposed applicant / assignee that first respondent bank / applicant in OA had taken huge time to hand over the case papers along with previous counsel’s details. After obtaining the details only, the petitioner came to know that the OA has been dismissed for default on 25.03.2024. Hence immediately, the present

¶48

counsel was engaged and steps were taken to file necessary petitions. Hence the delay has occurred, which is neither willful nor wanton but

¶49

MAs 264/25 to 267/25 in TA No.1581/2023

¶50

03.10.2025

¶51

¶52

only due to the aforesaid reason. Thus submitting, counsel prayed for condonation of delay in filing restoration petition, restoration of TA, condonation of delay in filing substitution petition and for substitution of proposed applicant in place of assignor bank.

¶53

Heard the counsel for petitioner and perused the records

¶54

of the case .

¶55

The applicant, being a financial institution has filed the OA for recovery of a sum of Rs.69,70,302.77p along with interest and for sale of mortgaged properties. OA was filed before DRT-II, Chennai and assigned OA No.729/2019. Subsequently, due to bifurcation of jurisdiction, OA was transferred to this Tribunal and re-numbered as TA No.1581 of 2023. During the pendency of the OA, the applicant bank, DBS Bank India Limited had assigned the debt along with underlying securities to the assignee M/s Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited vide Assignment Agreement dated 23.12.2022, which is registered as Doc. No. 104 of 2022 before the Sub Registrar, Melakarur. It is seen that the applicant has not prosecuted the case even after transfer of case to this Tribunal. Accordingly, TA came to be dismissed for default and nonprosecution on 25.03.2024.

¶56

In view of the fact that the M/s Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited 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 -

¶57

MAs 264/25 to 267/25 in TA No.1581/2023

¶58

03.10.2025

¶59

¶60

Vs.- K.J. Sakadeva Raja reported in LAWS (MAD)-2020-8-441 feels

¶61

it apt to condone the delay and restore the OA and give last opportunity to applicant to permit the assignee to continue the TA in place of assignor bank, as per the Assignment Agreement.

¶62

Accordingly, MAs 264/25, 265/25, 266/25 & 267/25 stands allowed. Applicant to carry out amendment and file amended copy of TA, after sending copy of the amended TA to the defendants and file proof thereof.

¶63

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

¶64

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 03^rd day of October, 2025)

lAKSHMI Vilas Bank v. M/S B R Jewellers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

lAKSHMI Vilas Bank v. M/S B R Jewellers

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

Punjab National Bank versus Ms Pooja Enterprises

Federal Bank versus Deepak Kuamr agarwal

Idbi Bank versus Vishnu Prakash

lAKSHMI Vilas Bank versus M/S B R Jewellers

Bank of Baroda versus M S Blue Line Sea Foods

State Bank of India versus Sucharithra