Allowed

Small Industries Development Bank of India v. Magno Coils

DRT12 Dec 2025MA/374/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai, allowed petitioner MA petitions to condone a 1969-day delay in filing a substitution petition. This permitted India SME ARC to be added as the assignee applicant in place of SIDBI, relying on the Madras High Court judgment that the assignee should be given an opportunity to continue the proceeding.

What did the court decide?

MAs No.374/25 & 375/25 allowed for condonation of delay and substitution of petitioner as assignee applicant, subject to payment of costs and filing compliance report.

Small Industries Development Bank of India versus Magno Coils — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

MAs 374/25 & 375/25 in OA 86/2009

¶2

12.12.2025

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 12^th day of December, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

M.As 374/25 & 375/25 in O.A. No.86 of 2009

¶8

India SME Asset Reconstruction Company Limited Represented by its Assistant Vice President Having office at ARENA House, 2^nd Floor Gate No.3, Plot No.103, Road No.12, Marol Andheri East, Mumbai – 400 093

¶9

….Proposed Applicant / Assignee

¶10

Small Industries Development Bank of India Represented by its Deputy General Manager

¶11

Having its Branch Office at Overseas Towers 207, AIEMA TOWER, 1^st Main Road

¶12

Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai – 600 058

¶13

…..Original Applicant / Assignor

¶14

-Vs-

¶15

Magno Coil Rep. by its Proprietrix Mrs. Prabha Balagopal No.329, Raja Street, Padi Chennai – 600 050

¶16

Mrs. Prabha Balagopal A-5, Sakthi Apartments

¶17

No.20, Cenotaph Road Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018

¶18

Mr. K.C. Balagopal A-5, Sakthi Apartments No.20, Cenotaph Road

¶19

Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018

¶20

….Respondents / Defendants 1 to 3

¶21

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶22

Counsel for Applicant : M/s A. Ramasamy

¶23

MAs 374/25 & 375/25 in OA 86/2009

¶24

12.12.2025

¶25

¶26

: - ORDER ON MA NOs. 374/2025 & 375/2025- :

¶27

The Original Application is filed by the original applicant, Small Industries Development Bank of India, against the Defendants, seeking main relief to order the Respondents 1 to 3, who are Defendant Nos.1 to 3 to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.1,31,72,479/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty One Lakhs Seven Two Thousand Four Hundred and Seventy Nine only) with further interest and costs.

¶28

The Applicant Bank has filed the present petitions i.e., MA No.374/2025 and 375/2025 along with affidavit of Associate Vice President of M/s India SME Asset Reconstruction Company Limited seeking to permit the petitioner herein to be added as Assignee Applicant in place of applicant viz., SIDBI to conduct the case, seeking to condone delay of 1969 days in filing substation petition respectively.

¶29

It is submitted by applicant bank that the OA was decreed on 31.07.2012 in favour of the applicant. Subsequent to which the original application (SIDBI) have assigned the entire liabilities of the 2^nd respondent and its guarantors in favour of the petitioner / proposed applicant on 18.01.2018 through Assignment Agreement duly registered as Document No.BDR1-766 of 2018 dated 18.01.2018 at Joint Sub Registrar, Andheri-1, Mumbai – 500 093. Further the applicant SIDBI had executed a supplementary Assignment Agreement in favour of petitioner, which was

¶30

MAs 374/25 & 375/25 in OA 86/2009

¶31

¶32

12.12.2025

¶33

subsequently registered vide Document No.3262 of 2021 dated 13.07.2021 at the office of Sub-Registrar, Walajabad, Kancheepuram District.

¶34

It is submitted by the petitioner that after execution of supplementary Assignment Agreement, the substitution petition was filed before this Tribunal on 07.10.2021 in OA No.86 of 2009 vide SR No.5640 of 2021, which was returned by the Registry on 26.11.2021 stating that the substitution petition has to be filed by the Assignor. The assignor also did not co-operate with the assignee. Hence the petitioner was unable to represent the substitution petition, which is neither willful nor wanton. In the meanwhile, the erstwhile Authorised Officer of the petitioner company had left the service and thereafter the new Authorised Officer has taken charge during second week of June, 2025. Immediately, a fresh substitution petition was filed before this Tribunal. Hence the delay of 1969 days occurred, which is neither willful nor wanton but only due to the aforesaid reason. Thus submitting, counsel prayed for condonation of delay and for substitution of proposed applicant in place of assignor.

¶35

Heard counsel for petitioner and perused the records of the case .

¶36

The applicant, being a financial institution has filed the present petition for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,31,72,479/- along with interest and for sale of mortgaged properties. In view of the fact that M/s India SME Asset Reconstruction Company Limited / proposed applicant, being a financial institution is the custodian of the public money held under trust,

¶37

MAs 374/25 & 375/25 in OA 86/2009

¶38

12.12.2025

¶39

¶40

the Tribunal relying on the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madras (At Madurai) in the 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 give last opportunity to applicant to permit the assignee to continue the OA in place of assignor bank, as per the Assignment Agreement.

¶41

Accordingly, MAs No.374/25 & 375/25 stands allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority on or before 05.01.2026 by the petitioner and to file the payment of compliance report before the Registry.

¶42

In case of the petitioner complying with the condition as above, MAs stands allowed. Applicant to carry out amendment and file amended copy of OA after serving copies on the other side and file proof thereof. It is clarified that in case if the petitioner fails to comply with the conditional order above, MAs stand dismissed automatically without there being any need to pass separate order.

¶43

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

¶44

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 12^th day of December, 2025)

Small Industries Development Bank of India v. Magno Coils

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Small Industries Development Bank of India v. Magno Coils

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

State Bank of India versus Kannan

Suganthi Educational Trust versus Cfm Asset Reconstruction Private Limited

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Jai Kamal Paints

State Bank of India versus Sabari Jayam Match Industries

State Bank of India versus Loganathan

State Bank of India versus Chellappan