Allowed

Andhra Bank v. S B Agencies

DRT17 Dec 2025MA/353/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the maintenance applications to condone a delay of 1037 days in filing a restoration petition and restore the original application dismissed for default, relying on the precedent set by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, subject to payment of costs. The main application remains pending for prosecution.

What did the court decide?

Main Applications allowing restoration of the Original Application and condonation of 1037 days' delay were allowed subject to payment of Rs.3,000 costs to TN State Legal Services Authority by 07.01.2

Andhra Bank versus S B Agencies — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

MAs 353/25 & 354/25 in OA No.363/2019

¶2

17.12.2025

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 17^th day of December, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

M.A. Nos.353/25 & 354/25 in

¶8

O.A. No.363 of 2019

¶9

Union Bank of India (formerly Andhra Bank) Asset Recovery Branch No.168, Second Floor, Linghi Chetty Street Parrys, Chennai – 600 001 Rep. by its Chief Manager ….Petitioner / Applicant

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

S.B. Agencies

¶12

Prop. Mrs. Ramakrishnan Bharani 71, 4^th Cross Street

¶13

6^th Sakthi Nagar

¶14

Mangadu, Chennai – 600 122

¶15

R. Vasudevan

S/o Ramakrishnan

20, Jothi Nagar

75, Kakkalur Village

Tiruvallur Taluk

Tiruvallur District – 602 003 ….Respondents/Defendants

¶21

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶22

Counsel for Petitioner : M/s T. Narayanasamy

¶23

: - ORDER ON MA NOs.353/25 & 354/25- :

¶24

The Original Application is filed by the applicant bank against the Defendants, seeking main relief to order the Respondents, to pay jointly

¶25

and severally a sum of Rs.35,64,265.10p (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs

¶26

MAs 353/25 & 354/25 in OA No.363/2019

¶27

¶28

17.12.2025

¶29

Sixty Four Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Five and Ten Paise

¶30

only) with further interest and costs.

¶31

The Petitioner has filed the present petitions i.e., MA No.353/25 and 354/25 along with affidavit of Deputy Manager – Ms. B. Gayathri, seeking to condone delay of 1037 days in filing restoration petition and to restore the TA, which was dismissed for default on 25.07.2022.

¶32

It is submitted that on 27.06.2022, the merger petition filed by applicant bank was allowed and applicant bank was permitted to carry out amendment and file amended OA. Subsequently, the matter was posted for filing ex-parte PA and OD. As PA and OD could not be filed, the OA was dismissed for default and non-prosecution on 25.07.2022. Subsequently, the applicant bank had filed the PA and OD before the Registry, which was returned by the Registry for rectification of defects. As the case bundle got misplaced with other bundles, the applicant bank could not trace out the same. Hence the delay has occurred, which is neither willful nor wanton but only due to the aforesaid reason. Thus submitting, counsel prayed for condonation of delay of 1037 days in filing restoration petition and to restore the OA which was dismissed on 25.07.2022.

¶33

Heard the counsel for petitioner and perused the records of

¶34

the case .

¶35

The applicant, being a financial institution has filed the OA for recovery of a sum of Rs.35,64,265.10p along with interest and for sale of

¶36

MAs 353/25 & 354/25 in OA No.363/2019

¶37

¶38

17.12.2025

¶39

mortgaged properties. After completion of service of summons, the defendants were placed ex-parte on 13.11.2019, subsequent to which, applicant bank had availed substantial number of adjournments upto July, 2022 for processing PA and OD. As applicant bank did not rectify the proof affidavit and documents, OA came to be dismissed for default and nonprosecution on 25.07.2022.

¶40

In view of the fact that the applicant bank being a financial institution is the custodian of the public money held under trust, the Tribunal relying on the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madras (At Madurai) in the

¶41

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 restore the OA and give last opportunity to applicant to prosecute the case.

¶42

Accordingly, MAs 353/25 and 354/25 stands allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.3,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority on or before 07.01.2026 by the applicant and to file the compliance report before the Registry.

¶43

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.

¶44

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

¶45

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 17^th day of December, 2025)

Andhra Bank v. S B Agencies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Andhra Bank v. S B Agencies

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

Ssr Rajendrakumar versus Icici Bank Limited

Mr K Selvaraju versus Bank of Baroda

Mrs Pushpa versus Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited

Ms Nakshatra Garments and C M Prabhu and H Navaneetham Prabhu versus City Union Bank Limited

P Harikrishnan versus Harikrishnan

Andhra Bank versus Mr Mohan C