Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Prime Print Services

DRT24 Oct 2025MA/306/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application for condonation of a 568-day delay in re-presenting an Original Application for money recovery, relying on a High Court precedent granting an opportunity to prosecute the case.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of 568 days' delay in re-presenting the Original Application subject to payment of Rs. 1,000 cost to State Legal Services Authority and filing a compliance report.

Union Bank of India versus Prime Print Services — 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.306 of 2025 in OA Dy. No.199/2023

¶6

M/s. Union Bank of India, (Erstwhile M/s. Corporation Bank) Rep. by its Chief Manager, Corporate Banking, Whites Road Branch, 38 & 39, Whites Road, Chennai – 600 014

¶7

...Applicant

¶8

-Vs-

¶9

M/s. Prime Print Services,

¶10

Old No.21-A, New No.49, 2^nd Floor, Langs Garden Road, Chitra Theatre Road, Pudupet, Chennai – 600 002

¶11

Also at

¶12

M/s. Prime Print Services, No.116, E.H. Road, Sharma Nagar, Vysarpadi, Chennai – 600 039

¶13

Mr. S. Subramaniam, S/o Late Mr. A.K. Swamy D.No.25B/B Block No.S-2, Ramadhasar Salai, Parasakthi Nagar, Thiruverkadu, Poonndamalli, Chennai – 600 077

¶14

Mr. S. Saravanakumar, S/o Late Mr. A.K. Swamy D.No.25B/B Block No.S-2, Ramadhasar Salai, Parasakthi Nagar, Thiruverkadu,

¶15

Poonndamalli, Chennai – 600 077 ….Defendants

¶16

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶17

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. Deepa Harigovind

¶18

¶19

ORDER IN MA No. 306/2025

¶20

MA No. 306 of 2025 is taken up. This is an application filed by applicant bank for condonation of delay of 568 days in re-presenting the OA.

¶21

Perused the Affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicant bank.

¶22

It is submitted by applicant bank that the present OA was filed for recovery of sum of Rs.35,49,358.29p together with interest and costs. It is submitted by the applicant bank that the Original Application was returned by the Registry on 02.05.2023. It is submitted that as the counsel’s mother passed away, counsel was away from Chennai for some time and 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 568 days in representing the OA.

¶23

Perused the Affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicant bank

¶24

and the records of the case.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

Accordingly, MA No.306/25 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.

¶31

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 to comply with the conditional order above, MA stand dismissed 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 24^th day of October, 2025)

Union Bank of India v. Prime Print Services

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Prime Print Services

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

Federal Bank versus M/s.Abhiraj Constructions

State Bank of India versus Jothi

State Bank of India versus a Joseph