Allowed

Dbs Bank Limited v. Ravi

DRT10 Oct 2025MA/283/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed petitions to restore a trial application dismissed for default and permitted subscriber substitution. The court condoned significant delays for the applicant named DBS Bank that had assigned the debt to the Asset Reconstruction Company, citing a High Court judgment to allow the assignee to continue proceedings pending compliance.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay in restoration and substitution petitions allowed; MAs allowed subject to payment of Rs. 2,000 costs and filing amended TA.

Dbs Bank Limited versus Ravi — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

MAs 282/25 to 285/25 In TA No.1547/2023

¶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

¶7

Presiding Officer

¶8

M.A. Nos.282/25, 283/25, 284/25 & 285/25

¶9

¶10

T.A. No.1547 of 2023

¶11

Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited, 10^th Floor 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Maharashtra Mumbai, 400 028 ……Petitioner / Proposed Applicant

¶12

DBS Bank India Ltd, T. Nagar Branch, No.29, Govindu Street, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017 ….Assignor Applicant

¶13

-Vs-

¶14

Mr. A.P. Ravi, S/o Mr. A.P. Pakkirisamy, No.10, Ramanathan Street, III Floor, No.13, Touch Wood Apartment, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034

¶15

Mrs. R. Manju, W/o Mr. A.P. Ravi No.10, Ramanathan Street, III Floor, No.13, Touch Wood Apartment, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034

¶16

Smt.P. Savithri, W/o Mr. A.P. Pakkirisamy No.20, Saravana Velu Street, Poonthottam Village, Kamala Kannapan Nagar, Villupuram – 605 602

¶17

M/s M.R. Garden Rep. by its Proprietrix Mrs. R. Manju No.18, Kannan Street, Kadapari Village, Tambaram Sanitorium, Chennai 60 045

¶18

MAs 282/25 to 285/25 In TA No.1547/2023

¶19

10.10.2025

¶20

¶21

M/s. M.R. Garments

¶22

Rep. by its Partners Mr. A.P. Ravi & Mrs. R. Manju No.55, Akshaya Plaza, 1^st Floor Shop No.7, Harish Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 002

¶23

M/s M.R. Enterprises Rep. by its Proprietor Mr. A.P. Ravi No.55, Akshaya Plaza, 1^st Floor Shop.7, Harish Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 002

¶24

M/s. Rex International Rep. by its Proprietrix Mrs. R. Manju No.55, Akshaya Plaza, 1^st Floor Shop.7, Harish Road, Egmore, Chennai – 600 002

¶25

J.D. Selvarani, D/o. Mr. D. Pitchaimani Nadar, No.7, Fifth Cross Street, Pammal, Chennai – 600 075

¶26

Mr. P. Kanagaraj, S/o. Mr. D. Pitchaimani Nadar, No.7, Fifth Cross Street, Pammal, Chennai – 600 075

¶27

M.R. Garden Services Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by its Partners Mr. A.P. Ravi & Mrs. R. Manju No.18, Kannan Street, Kadapari Village, Tambaram Sanitorium, Chennai 600 045

¶28

Mr. A. Pakkirisamy No.20, Saravana Velu Street, Poonthottam Village, Kamala Kannapan Nagar, Villupuram 605 602 ….Respondents /Defendants

¶29

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶30

Counsel for Petitioner : M/s Ananda Gomathy

¶31

: - ORDER ON MA NOs.282/25, 283/25, 284/25 & 285/25- :

¶32

The Original Application is filed by the Erstwhile The Lakshmi Vilas

¶33

Bank Limited, subsequently merged with DBS Bank India Limited, against the Defendants, seeking main relief to order the Respondents 1 to 11,

¶34

MAs 282/25 to 285/25 In TA No.1547/2023

¶35

¶36

10.10.2025

¶37

who are Defendant Nos.1 to 11 to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.6,09,14,520.35 (Rupees Six Crores Nine Lakh Fourteen Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty and Thirty Five Paisa only) with further interest and costs.

¶38

The Petitioner has filed the present petitions i.e., MA No.282/25, 283/25, 284/25 & 285/25 along with affidavit of Authorised Officer– Sh. V. Ragothaman V, seeking to condone delay of 641 days in filing restoration petition, to restore the TA which was dismissed for default on 12.09.2023, to condone delay of 915 days in filing substitution petition and to permit proposed applicant herein to be added as Assignee Applicant in place of applicant bank viz., the DBS Bank to conduct the TA No.1547/2023.

¶39

It is submitted that the OA No.806/2019 (before DRT-II) was initiated by The Lakhsmi Vilas Bank (since merged with DBS Bank India Limited) which was subsequently transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.1547/2023. During the pendency of OA, the applicant bank has assigned the debts to M/s Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited vide Assignment Agreement dated 22.12.2022.

¶40

It is further submitted that subsequent to assignment, the applicant

¶41

had taken huge time to hand over the case papers and previous counsel’s details to the petitioner / proposed applicant. Hence the case could not be prosecuted, which came to be dismissed for default and non-prosecution on 12.09.2023.

¶42

MAs 282/25 to 285/25 In TA No.1547/2023

¶43

10.10.2025

¶44

¶45

In the meanwhile, applicant bank had assigned various loan accounts including the subject Loan of respondents 1 to 11, who are defendants / borrowers of credit facilities from Erstwhile The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited, which was merged with DBS Bank India Limited by way of an Assignment Agreement bearing Document No.104/2022 dated 22.12.2022.

¶46

It is submitted that the applicant has always acted diligently and with due care in pursuing the matter. The delay has occurred due to bonafide reasons and circumstances beyond the Petitioner’s/applicant’s control, which is neither willful nor wanton but only due to the aforesaid reason. Thus submitting, counsel prayed for condonation of delay in filing restoration petition, restoration of TA, condonation of delay in filing substitution petition and for substitution of proposed applicant in place of assignor bank.

¶47

Heard the counsel for petitioner and perused the records of

¶48

the case .

¶49

The applicant, being a financial institution has filed the OA for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,09,14,520.35p along with interest and for sale of mortgaged properties. OA was filed before DRT-II, Chennai and assigned OA No.806/2019. Subsequently, due to bifurcation of jurisdiction, OA was transferred to this Tribunal and re-numbered as TA No.1547 of 2023. During the pendency of the OA, the applicant bank, DBS Bank India Limited had assigned the debt along with underlying securities

¶50

MAs 282/25 to 285/25 In TA No.1547/2023

¶51

10.10.2025

¶52

¶53

to the assignee M/s Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited vide Assignment Agreement dated 22.12.2022, which is registered as Doc. No. 104 of 2022. 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 non-prosecution on 12.09.2024.

¶54

In view of the fact that the M/s Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited being a financial institution is the custodian of the public money held under trust, the Tribunal relying on the judgment of Hon’ble

¶55

High Court of Madras (At Madurai) in the judgment of V.P. Rajula -

¶56

Vs.- K.J. Sakadeva Raja reported in LAWS (MAD)-2020-8-441 feels

¶57

it apt to condone the delay and restore the OA and give last opportunity to applicant to permit the assignee to continue the TA in place of assignor bank, as per the Assignment Agreement.

¶58

Accordingly, MAs 282/25, 283/25, 284/25 & 285/25 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.

¶59

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. Applicant to carry out amendment and file amended copy of TA, after sending copy of the amended TA to the defendants and file proof thereof.

¶60

MAs 282/25 to 285/25 In TA No.1547/2023

¶61

10.10.2025

¶62

¶63

List the matter on 06.11.2025 before Registrar for further

¶64

proceedings.

¶65

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

¶66

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the

¶67

10^th day of October, 2025)

Dbs Bank Limited v. Ravi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dbs Bank Limited v. Ravi

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

State Bank of India versus Balakrishnan P

Union Bank of India versus Sudhakar