Allowed

Federal Bank v. M/s.Abhiraj Constructions

DRT24 Oct 2025MA/297/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application for condonation of delay in re-presenting an Original Application, the Tribunal allowed the delay of 140 days. It relied on the Madras High Court judgment V.P. Rajula and directed the applicant to pay contingency charges and file a compliance report.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay of 140 days in representing the OA, subject to payment of Rs. 1,000 to TN State Legal Services Authority and filing compliance report.

Federal Bank versus M/s.Abhiraj Constructions — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶3

Dated this the 24^th day of October 2025

¶4

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶5

M.A. No.297 of 2025 in OA Dy. No.238/2024

¶6

M/s. Federal Bank Limited, 113A, G.S.T Road, Opp. Saradha Lodge Chengalpattu – 603 001 Tamilnadu ...Applicant

¶7

-Vs-

¶8

M/s. Abhiraj Constructions,

¶9

A Sole proprietorship herein,

¶10

Rep. by its Prop. Mr. Sankara Subramanian S, No.3, State Bank Colony, 1^st Street, Rajakilpakkam, Chenbakkam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 073

¶11

Also at

¶12

M/s. Abhiraj Constructions, No.86A, VGP Srinivas Nagar North, 1^st Main Road, Rajakilpakkam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 073

¶13

Mr. Sankara Subramanian S, S/o. Santhanam, No.86A, VGP Srinivas Nagar North, 1^st Main Road, Rajakilpakkam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 073

¶14

Also at

¶15

Mr. Sankara Subramanian S, No.3, State Bank Colony, 1^st Street, Rajakilpakkam, Chenbakkam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 073

¶16

¶17

Mrs. Archana, W/o. Mr. Sankara Subramanian S, No. 86A, VGP Srinivas Nagar North, 1^st Main Road, Rajakilpakkam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 073

¶18

Also at

¶19

Mrs. Archana, No.3, State Bank Colony, 1^st Street, Rajakilpakkam, Chenbakkam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 073

¶20

Mrs. Sivakamasundari, W/o. Santhanam, No. 86A, VGP Srinivas Nagar North, 1^st Main Road, Rajakilpakkam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 073

¶21

Also at

¶22

Mrs. Sivakamasundari, No.3, State Bank Colony, 1^st Street, Rajakilpakkam, Chenbakkam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 073 ….Defendants

¶23

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶24

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. T. Shanmugananda Vijayakumar

¶25

ORDER IN MA No. 297/2025

¶26

MA No. 297 of 2025 is taken up. This is an application filed by applicant bank for condonation of delay of 140 days in re-presenting the OA.

¶27

Perused the Affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicant bank.

¶28

It is submitted by applicant bank that the present OA was filed for recovery of sum of Rs.1,64,77,363/- together with interest and costs. It is submitted by the applicant bank that the Original Application was

¶29

¶30

returned by the Registry on 05.02.2025 for compliance by 2 weeks. It is submitted that the said officer was transferred out of his job and hence the matter was lost track of. It was only recently realized that the said translation exercise has not been completed in time. 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 140 days in representing the OA.

¶31

Perused the Affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicant bank

¶32

and the records of the case.

¶33

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

¶34

of Hon’ble High Court of Madras (At Madurai) in the judgment of

¶35

V.P. Rajula -Vs.- K.J. Sakadeva Raja reported in LAWS (MAD)-

¶36

2020-8-441 feels it apt to condone the delay and give opportunity to applicant to prosecute their case.

¶37

Accordingly, MA No.297/25 stands allowed and delay is condoned, subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority on or before 21.11.2025 by the applicant and to file the compliance report before the Registry.

¶38

¶39

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

¶40

to comply with the conditional order above, MA stand dismissed automatically without there being any need to pass separate order.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

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

¶43

(Dictated to Steno (Deepika), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 24^th day of October, 2025)

Federal Bank v. M/s.Abhiraj Constructions

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Federal Bank v. M/s.Abhiraj Constructions

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

Logesh Babu versus Axis Bank

Yes Bank versus M/s. Svr Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

Indian Overseas Bank versus Prince

Union Bank of India versus Prime Print Services

State Bank of India versus Jothi

State Bank of India versus a Joseph