Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. M S Blue Line Sea Foods

DRT3 Oct 2025MA/274/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application for condonation of delay of 116 days in re-presenting an Original Application. The delay was attributed to a change of counsel and unforeseen circumstances in collecting documents.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 116 days in re-presenting the Original Application is condoned, subject to payment of Rs.1,000 cost and filing of compliance.

Bank of Baroda versus M S Blue Line Sea Foods — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶3

Dated this the, 03^rd day of October 2025

¶4

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶5

M.A. No.274 of 2025 in OA Dy. No.1878/2024

¶6

M/s. Bank of Baroda, R.K. Nagar Branch, No.60, (Old No.36), V.K. Iyer Road, R.A. Puram, Mandaveli, Chennai – 600 028,

¶7

Rep. by its Branch Manager. ...Applicant

¶8

-Vs-

¶9

M/s Blue Line Sea Foods,

¶10

Rep. by its Proprietor Mr. Imran Khan, No.25/14, Srinivasapuram, 4^th Lane 2^nd Street, Washermenpet,

¶11

Chennai – 600021.

¶12

Mr. Imran Khan S/o. Mr. Mohammed Shajahan, No.41/6, Apparsamy Koil Street Thiruvotiyur, Chennai – 600019.

¶13

Also at: Mr. Imran Khan S/o. Mr. Mohammed Shajahan, 41c/4, Apparsamy Koil Street Thiruvotiyur, Chennai – 600019. ….Defendants

¶14

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶15

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. Vindhya Vasini

¶16

ORDER IN MA No. 274/2025

¶17

MA No. 274 of 2025 is taken up. This is an application filed by

¶18

applicant bank for condonation of delay of 116 days in re-presenting the OA.

¶19

¶20

Perused the Affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicant bank.

¶21

It is submitted by applicant bank that the present OA was filed for recovery of sum of Rs.93,37,783.58p together with interest and costs. The OA was returned by the Registry for compliance. Due to change of Counsel for Applicant Bank, the status of the case was brought to applicant bank’s notice only at a later point of time. Therefore due to unavoidable and unforeseen circumstances delay has occurred for collecting the required documents and explanations regarding the OA corrections. Hence 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 116 days in representing the OA.

¶22

Perused the Affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicant bank

¶23

and the records of the case.

¶24

As OA is filed for recovery of money due from borrower and 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

¶25

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.

¶26

Accordingly, MA No.274/25 stands allowed and delay is condoned, subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal

¶27

¶28

Services Authority on or before 27.10.2025 by the applicant and to file the compliance report before the Registry.

¶29

In case of the applicant complying with the order and filing compliance memo, 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

¶30

to comply with the conditional order above, MA stand dismissed

¶31

automatically without there being any need to pass separate order.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

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

¶34

(Dictated to Steno (Deepika), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 03^rd day of October, 2025)

Bank of Baroda v. M S Blue Line Sea Foods

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. M S Blue Line Sea Foods

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 Pooja Enterprises

Federal Bank versus Deepak Kuamr agarwal

Idbi Bank versus Vishnu Prakash

lAKSHMI Vilas Bank versus M/S B R Jewellers

lAKSHMI Vilas Bank versus M/S B R Jewellers

State Bank of India versus Sucharithra