Allowed

Canara Bank v. M s Reach Telecommunications Pvt. Ltd.

DRT19 Feb 2025MA/273/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT-III Chennai allowed miscellaneous applications to condone 760-day delay and restore an default-dismissed original application filed by Canara Bank against borrowers under the SARFAESI Act, conditional on payment of costs.

What did the court decide?

MA 273/24 and 95/25 allowed; OA restored subject to payment of Rs. 50,000 costs and filing compliance report.

Canara Bank versus M s Reach Telecommunications Pvt. Ltd. — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

MAs 273/24 & 95/25 in OA No.31/2019

¶2

19.02.2025

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 19^th day of February, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

Misc. Application Nos. 273/24 & 95/25 in OA No.31 of 2019

¶8

Canara Bank, Vepery Branch Rep. by Senior Manager No.137, Choolai High Road Choolai, Chennai – 600 112

¶9

….Petitioner / Applicant

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

M/s. Reach Telecommunications Pvt. Ltd. M-75/3, 3^rd Avenue, Anna Nagar East, ]

¶12

Chennai – 600 102

¶13

Mr. L. Ramachandran, S/o V. Loganathan Managing Director No.4, Flat – D, I Floor, Classic Apartments M/s Reach Telecommunications Pvt. Ltd. M-75/3, 3^rd Avenue, Anna Nagar East Chennai – 600 102

¶14

Also at 136, A.P. Road, Choolai, Chennai – 600 112

¶15

Mrs. R. Girija, W/o L. Ramachandran, Director M/s Reach Telecommunications Pvt. Ltd. M-75/3, 3^rd Avenue, Anna Nagar East Chennai – 600 102

¶16

Also at 136, A.P. Road, Choolai, Chennai – 600 112

¶17

MAs 273/24 & 95/25 in OA No.31/2019

¶18

¶19

19.02.2025

¶20

Mr. Selvam, S/o Mr. V. Loganathan 136, A.P. Road, Choolai, Chennai – 600 112 .….Respondents/Defendants

¶21

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶22

Counsel for Applicant : Mr. M. Muthukumaran

¶23

: -ORDER ON MA NOs. 273/24 & 95/25-:

¶24

MA 273/24 is filed by applicant bank praying to condone delay of 760 days in filing restoration petition and MA 95/25 is filed to restore TA, which was dismissed for default on 18.05.2022.

¶25

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.5,66,93,552.32p (Rupees Five Crores Sixty Six Lakhs Ninety Three Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Two and Thirty Two paise only) together with future interest and costs.

¶26

The Applicant Bank has filed the present petitions i.e., MA No. 273/24 & 95/25 along with affidavit of Sh. D. Ravi Shankar, Senior Manager of Asset Recovery Management Branch seeking to condone delay of 760 days in filing restoration petition and to restore OA which was dismissed for default on 18.05.2022.

¶27

It is submitted by applicant bank that the OA was posted for rectification of Proof Affidavit. As the erstwhile counsel did not prosecute the case diligently despite availing five adjournments, OA came to be dismissed for default on 18.05.2022. As applicant bank was pursuing to sell the secured asset under SARFAESI Act,

¶28

MAs 273/24 & 95/25 in OA No.31/2019

¶29

¶30

19.02.2025

¶31

applicant bank could not engage a new counsel to file the restoration petition immediately. Hence the delay of 760 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.

¶32

Heard and perused the records of the case .

¶33

The applicant, being a financial institution has filed the present restoration petition for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,66,93,552.32p 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 18.05.2022

¶34

In view of the fact that the bank being a financial institution is the custodian of the public money held under trust, the Tribunal feels it apt to condone the delay and restore the OA and give last opportunity to applicant to adduce their evidence along with documents.

¶35

Accordingly, MAs 273/24 & 95/25 stands allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.50,000/- to the 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 03.03.2025 by the applicant bank and to file the payment of compliance report before the Registrar Court on 05.03.2025.

¶36

MAs 273/24 & 95/25 in OA No.31/2019

¶37

19.02.2025

¶38

¶39

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.

¶40

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

¶41

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 19^th day of February, 2025)

Canara Bank v. M s Reach Telecommunications Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M s Reach Telecommunications Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A Dheepa versus Axis Bank

State Bank of India versus Seetharaman

Indiabulls Asset Reconstruction Private Limited versus M/S Shristi Construction Quipments

Union Bank of India versus Veeravel

Idbi Bank versus M/S R P Usha Enterprises

K M Ganesan versus Bank of Baroda