Allowed

State Bank of India v. Balakrishnan P

DRT10 Oct 2025MA/276/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed applications to condone a 1082-day delay in filing a restoration petition and restored an automatically dismissed application. The court relied on a High Court judgment, emphasizing the bank's role as a custodian of public money, and ordered it to pay costs and prosecute within a deadline, with dismissal for non-compliance.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay and restoration of the dismissed application, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 2,000 to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority and prosecution of the case.

State Bank of India versus Balakrishnan P — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

MAs 276/25 and 277/25 in TA No.1340/2025

¶2

10.10.2025

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 10^th day of October, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

M.A. Nos.276/25, 277/25 in T.A. No.1340 of 2025

¶8

State Bank of India ARMB Branch, Rep. by its Chief Manager, Having its office at No.44, I floor, Eldams Road, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018 ….Petitioner / Applicant

¶9

-Vs-

¶10

Mr. Balakrishnan, S/o Palanisamy, New No.37, Old No.19, 91^st Street, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083 ….Respondents /Defendants

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Petitioner : M/s N. Kishore Kumar

¶13

: - ORDER ON MA NOs.276/25 & 277/25- :

¶14

The Original Application is filed by the applicant bank against the

¶15

Defendants, seeking main relief to order the Respondents, to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.42,45,743/- (Rupees Forty Two Lakhs Forty Five Thousand Seven Hundred and Forty Three

¶16

only) with further interest and costs.

¶17

The Petitioner has filed the present petitions i.e., MA No.276/25

¶18

and 277/25 along with affidavit of Deputy Manager – Sh. S. Surendar,

¶19

MAs 276/25 and 277/25 in TA No.1340/2025

¶20

10.10.2025

¶21

¶22

seeking to condone delay of 1082 days in filing restoration petition and to restore the TA which was dismissed for default on 20.06.2022.

¶23

It is submitted that the defendant was called absent on 29.08.2019 and was set ex-parte as on 24.09.2019 and thereafter the applicant bank had filed ex-parte Proof Affidavit along with the Original Documents. It came to the knowledge of the applicant bank much later that for non-compliance of various returns at Proof Affidavit stage, on 20.06.2022, the case was dismissed for default and non-prosecution.

¶24

It is further submitted that due to Covid restrictions and lock down, applicant bank could not proceed to rectify the ex-parte Proof Affidavit and other documents. In the meantime, the counsel who had been appearing for the applicant bank also died due to Corona Virus infection in Covid Pandemic. The applicant bank was neither informed

¶25

nor updated and was kept in dark. The erstwhile counsel did not even hand over the papers property nor applied for certified copies of the orders and proceedings. In the meanwhile, there was change in jurisdiction and the case was transferred to this Tribunal. The original documents were also not immediately traceable, which was traced out only at a later point of time. After engaging the present counsel, applicant bank had taken steps to proceed further with the case. Hence the delay has occurred, which is neither willful nor wanton but only due to the aforesaid reason. Thus submitting, counsel prayed for

¶26

MAs 276/25 and 277/25 in TA No.1340/2025

¶27

¶28

10.10.2025

¶29

condonation of delay in filing restoration petition and to restore the TA which was dismissed on 20.06.2022.

¶30

Heard the counsel for petitioner and perused the records

¶31

of the case .

¶32

The applicant, being a financial institution has filed the OA for recovery of a sum of Rs.42,45,743 along with interest and for sale of mortgaged properties. OA was filed before DRT-II, Chennai and assigned OA No.466/2019. Subsequently, due to bifurcation of jurisdiction, OA was transferred to this Tribunal and re-numbered as TA No.1340 of 2025. Despite availing substantial number of adjournments, as applicant bank did not rectify the proof affidavit and documents. 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 20.06.2022.

¶33

In view of the fact that the applicant 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 delay and restore the TA and give last opportunity to applicant to prosecute the case.

¶34

MAs 276/25 and 277/25 in TA No.1340/2025

¶35

10.10.2025

¶36

¶37

Accordingly, MAs 276/25 and 277/25 stands allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.2,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority on or before 05.11.2025 by the applicant and to file the compliance report before the Registry.

¶38

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. List the matter on 06.11.2025 before the Registrar for further proceedings.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

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

¶41

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 10^th day of October, 2025)

State Bank of India v. Balakrishnan P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Balakrishnan P

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

Canara Bank versus Suresh Kumar

Axis Bank versus R Saravanan

State Bank of India versus M/s. Srp Aquaman

Dbs Bank Limited versus Ravi

Dbs Bank Limited versus Ravi

Union Bank of India versus Sudhakar