Allowed

Canara Bank v. Ms Penta Cut Tools And Four Others

DRT21 Feb 2025MA/267/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant bank sought to condone a 191-day delay in filing a restoration petition for an OA dismissed for default. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents, ordered conduction of delay, conditional restoration of the OA, and a direction to forgo interest for the delay period.

What did the court decide?

Miscellaneous applications allowed, OA restored to file subject to payment of costs and waiver of interest for the delay period.

Canara Bank versus Ms Penta Cut Tools And Four Others — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

MAs 267/24 & 103/25 in TA No.1449/2023

¶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

¶7

Presiding Officer

¶8

Misc. Application Nos. 267/24 & 103/25

¶9

in TA No.1449 of 2023

¶10

Canara Bank, GP Road Branch Rep. by Chief Manager No.110, General Patters Road Chennai – 600 002 ….Petitioner / Applicant -Vs-

¶11

M/s. Penta Cut Tools

¶12

Rep. by its Partners Mr. V. Kumar, S/o S. Vadivelu Ms. V. Jayanthi, W/o B. Siva Kumar Mr. B. Suresh Kumar, S/o A. Balakrishnan Flat – J, 3^rd Floor, Park Royale Apartments No.58, Park Road, Anna Nagar (W) Extn. Chennai – 600 101 & 04 others

¶13

.….Respondents/Defendants

¶14

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶15

Counsel for Applicant : Mr. P.H. Vinodh Pandian

¶16

: -ORDER ON MAs 267/24 & 103/25-:

¶17

MA 267/24 is filed by applicant bank praying to condone delay of 191 days in filing restoration petition and MA 103/25 is filed to restore TA, which was dismissed for default on 15.02.2024.

¶18

The Original Application is filed by the Petitioner/Applicant Bank against the Defendants, seeking main relief to order the Defendants pay a sum of Rs.73,95,723.79p (Rupees Seventy Three Lakhs Ninety Five Thousand Seven

¶19

Hundred and Twenty Three and Seventy Nine Paise only) together with future interest @ 19.95% p.a. with monthly rests and costs.

¶20

MAs 267/24 & 103/25 in TA No.1449/2023

¶21

¶22

21.02.2025

¶23

The Applicant Bank has filed the present petitions i.e., MA No. 267/24 & 103/25 along with affidavit of Ms. R. Komarayii, Chief Manager of applicant bank seeking to condone delay of 191 days in filing restoration petition and to restore OA which was dismissed for default on 15.02.2024.

¶24

It is submitted by applicant bank that the OA was posted for rectification of Proof Affidavit on 15.02.2024 as last chance. As applicant bank had neither rectified the proof affidavit nor the counsel had appeared before the Tribunal, OA came to be dismissed for default on 15.02.2024. It is submitted that due to administrative reason, applicant bank could not file the restoration petition immediately. Hence the delay of 191 days occurred, which is neither willful nor wanton but only due to the aforesaid reason. Thus submitting, counsel prayed for condonation of delay and restoration of TA.

¶25

Heard and perused the records of the case .

¶26

The applicant, being a financial institution has filed the present restoration petition for recovery of a sum of Rs.73,95,723.79p along with interest and for sale of mortgaged properties. It is seen that the applicant has not re-present the PA and OD despite availing substantial adjournments. Accordingly, OA came to be dismissed for default and non-prosecution on 15.02.2024.

¶27

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

¶28

MAs 267/24 & 103/25 in TA No.1449/2023

¶29

¶30

21.02.2025

¶31

delay and restore the OA and give last opportunity to applicant to adduce their evidence along with documents.

¶32

Accordingly, MA Nos. 267/24 and 103/25 stands allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.3,000/- 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 05.03.2025 by the applicant bank and to file the payment of compliance report before the Registrar Court on 07.03.2025.

¶33

Further, the Tribunal, placing reliance on the judgment supra , directs that in case if applicant bank succeeds in the OA, applicant bank shall not claim interest for the said period of 191 days from the defendants and file a memo of calculation at the time of adjudication of OA claim. The copy of this order be placed in the OA enabling to claim the exemption of interest at the time of final adjudication of OA.

¶34

In case of the applicant complying with the order, OA stands restored to file for processing of proof affidavit and documents before the Registrar’s Court on 07.03.2025. It is clarified that in case if the applicant bank fails to comply with the conditional order above, MAs stand 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)

Canara Bank v. Ms Penta Cut Tools And Four Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Ms Penta Cut Tools And Four Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

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