The Tribunal allowed the applicants' application for condonation of 458 days delay in re-presenting the OA due to inadvertence and health issues, relying on a Madras High Court judgment, subject to costs and procedural compliance.
Cleared the application for condonation of 458 days delay, subject to payment of Rs.1,000 cost and compliance with procedural instructions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI
Dated this the 10th day of October 2025
Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer
M.A. No.280 of 2025 in OA Dy. No.1367/2022
Union Bank of India Karaikal Branch, Rep. by its Senior Manager, No.44, Mama Thambi Maraicar Street Karaikal – 609 602 ...Applicant
-Vs-
No.2/72, Mela Street, Vazhamangalam, Agarakondahai,
Nagapattinam – 603 609
Nagapattinam – 603 609 ….Defendants
Counsels on record / appeared:
Counsel for Applicant : M/s. K.S. Sundar
ORDER IN MA No. 280/2025
applicant bank for condonation of delay of 458 days in re-presenting the OA.
recovery of sum of Rs.32,32,619/- together with interest and costs. It is
2
submitted that the OA was returned by the Registry on 30.05.2023 for compliance. It is submitted that one of the Counsel on Record became sick earlier and could not attend to office due to physical inability. After complying with all returns, the representation could not be made in time as the bundle was mixed up with another bundle and the same went unnoticed due to inadvertence. 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 458 days in representing the OA.
Perused the Affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicant bank
and the records of the case.
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 give opportunity to applicant to prosecute their case.
3
to comply with the conditional order above, MA stand dismissed automatically without there being any need to pass separate order.
Sd/(S.V. GOWRAMMA) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI
(Dictated to Steno (Deepika), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 10th day of October, 2025)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether delay of 458 days in presenting the application should be condoned considering the circumstances.
Whether a financial institution being a custodian of public money warrants condonation of delay for recovery.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
V.P. Rajula -Vs.- K.J. Sakadeva RajaApplied¶25
V.P. Rajula -Vs.- K.J. Sakadeva Raja reported in LAWS (MAD)- 2020-8-441
Union Bank of India, Karaikal Branch
Mr. K. Sudhakar
Mrs. S. Manivasaki
S.V. Gowramma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
S.V. Gowramma
Parties & counsel
