Allowed

Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank) v. M/S Om Sree Mathaji Engineers

DRT5 Feb 2025MA/31/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed miscellaneous applications to condone delays and restore an Original Application dismissed by default, directing the bank to pay costs and submit a compliance report within the stipulated timeline.

What did the court decide?

Restoration of the Original Application allowed subject to payment of Rs. 5,000 costs to M.H.C.L.S and filing a compliance report with the Registrar.

Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank) versus M/S Om Sree Mathaji… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

MA 31/25, 34/25 & 35/25 in TA No.03/2022

¶2

05.02.2025

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 05^th day of February, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

Misc. Application Nos.31/25, 34/25 & 35/25 in TA No.03 of 2023

¶8

Union Bank of India (erstwhile Andhra Bank) Rep. by its Chief Manager Asset Recovery Branch “Elconso Building”, No.9, Casa Major Road Egmore, Chennai – 600 008

¶9

….Petitioner / Applicant

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

M/s Om Sree Mathaji Engineers Rep. by its Proprietor of Mr. J. Venkataramani Plot No.8, Door No.2/1137A Arumugam Nagar 1^st Street Near Jeeva Nagar, Madipakkam Chennai – 600 091 2. Mr. J. Venkataramani S/o Mr. Janarthanam Plot No.8, Door No.2/1137A Arumugam Nagar 1^st Street Near Jeeva Nagar, Madipakkam Chennai – 600 091 3. Mrs. V. Kamakshi W/o Mr. Janarthanam Plot No.8, Door No.2/1137A Arumugam Nagar 1^st Street Near Jeeva Nagar, Madipakkam Chennai – 600 091 ….Respondents/Defendants Counsels on record / appeared: Counsel for Applicant : Shri. A. Jaishankar

¶12

MA 31/25, 34/25 & 35/25 in TA No.03/2022

¶13

¶14

05.02.2025

¶15

: -ORDER ON MA NOs.31/25, 34/25 & 35/25- :

¶16

The Original Application is filed by the Petitioner/Applicant Bank against the Defendant, seeking main relief to order the Defendants pay a sum of Rs.66,92,147.42p (Rupees Sixty Six Lakhs Ninety Two Thousand One Hundred and Forty Seven and Forty Two paise Only) together with Interest @ 13.35% p.a. and costs.

¶17

The Applicant Bank has filed the present petitions i.e., MA Nos.31/2025 and 35/2025 along with affidavit of Mrs. B. Gayathri, Chief Manager seeking to condone delay of 39 days in re-presentation of restoration petition and 593 days in filing the restoration petition and MA No.34/25 to restore OA which was dismissed for default and non-prosecution on 27.02.2023.

¶18

It is submitted by applicant bank that the case was posted on 29.09.2022 as defendants did not file written statement, they were set ex-parte and case was posted to 10.11.2022 for filing PA and OD by applicant bank. On 10.11.2022, the case was not listed before the Hon’ble Presiding Officer but was listed through E-drt and also on subsequent dates continuously through E-drt. Finally on 27.02.2023, the case also listed through E-drt and came to be dismissed for non-filing of PA and OD.

¶19

It is further submitted by applicant bank that as the earlier counsel on record for applicant bank did not prosecute the case, he was de-paneled from the bank and the present counsel was engaged to file application for restoration along with delay, which is neither willful nor wanton but due to the aforesaid reasons.

¶20

MA 31/25, 34/25 & 35/25 in TA No.03/2022

¶21

¶22

05.02.2025

¶23

It is further submitted by applicant bank that the mortgaged property was sold under SARFAESI Act for a sum of Rs.1,37,50,000/- and the said amount has been adjusted towards the loan account on 14.08.2024 towards full satisfaction of the OA claim. Hence applicant bank prays to restore the TA.

¶24

Heard and perused the records of the case .

¶25

The applicant, being a financial institution has filed the present restoration petition for recovery of a sum of Rs.66,92,147.42p along with interest and for sale of mortgaged properties. It is seen that the applicant has not filed the PA and OD despite availing adjournments. Accordingly, TA came to be dismissed for default and non-prosecution on 27.02.2023.

¶26

In view of the fact that the bank being a financial institution is the custodian of the public money held under trust, the Tribunal feels it apt to condone the delay and restore the OA and give last opportunity to applicant to adduce their evidence along with documents.

¶27

Accordingly, MA Nos.31/25 and 35/25 stands allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.5000/- to the Madras High Court Legal Services on or before 17.02.2025 by the applicant bank. MA No.34/25 stands allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.5000/- to the Madras High Court Legal Services on or before 17.02.2025 by the applicant bank and to file the payment of compliance report before the Registrar Court on 20.02.2025.

¶28

MA 31/25, 34/25 & 35/25 in TA No.03/2022

¶29

05.02.2025

¶30

¶31

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.

¶32

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

¶33

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 05^th day of February, 2025)

Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank) v. M/S Om Sree Mathaji Engineers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank) v. M/S Om Sree Mathaji Engineers

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indian Bank versus Sreekanth K

M Sivakumar versus Bank of India

Sree Maaselha Enterprises versus Bank of India

Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank) versus M/S Om Sree Mathaji Engineers

M Vijay versus Axis Bank

Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank) versus M/S Om Sree Mathaji Engineers