Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Satkunam S

DRT19 Dec 2025MA/388/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application for condonation of delay of 321 days filed by HDFC Bank to re-present its original application for money recovery, relying on the judgment of V.P. Rajula. Costs were awarded to the State Legal Services Authority pending compliance.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay of 321 days allowed subject to payment of Rs. 1,000 costs and compliance report.

Hdfc Bank versus Satkunam S — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶3

Dated this the 19^th day of December 2025

¶4

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶5

M.A. No.388 of 2025 in OA Dy. No.3069/2023

¶6

M/s. HDFC Bank Limited Rep. by its Legal Manager and Authorised signatory Mr.K.David No.110, CEEBROS Building Nelson Manickam Road, Aminjikarai Chennai – 600 029 ...Applicant

¶7

-Vs-

¶8

Satkunam S Door No-A1, Flat No.33, Murali Krishnan Nagar Main Road, Valasaravakkam, Near Medplus Medical, Chennai – 600 087

¶9

And also at Satkunam S No.27, Balagi Nagar, Thiruvallur Salai, Alwarthirunagar, Chennai – 600 087

¶10

And also at Satkunam S C/o. Gobika Enterprises No.20, Prakasam Street, Janaki Nagar, Valasaravakkam, Chennai – 600 087. ….Defendants

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. Acuity Law Associates

¶13

ORDER IN MA No. 388/2025

¶14

MA No. 388 of 2025 is taken up. This is an application filed by applicant bank for condonation of delay of 321 days in re-presenting the OA.

¶15

¶16

Perused the Affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicant bank.

¶17

It is submitted by applicant bank that the present OA was filed for recovery of sum of Rs.22,28,359.35p together with interest and costs. It is submitted by the applicant bank that the Original Application was returned by the Registry for complying with the returns on or before 05.07.2023. It is submitted that due to some logistical issues, the applicant bank had taken some time to furnish instructions to their counsel. Hence, the 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 321 days in representing the OA.

¶18

Perused the Affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicant bank and

¶19

the records of the case.

¶20

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 of

¶21

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

¶22

Rajula -Vs.- K.J. Sakadeva Raja reported in LAWS (MAD)-2020-8441 feels it apt to condone the delay and give opportunity to applicant to prosecute their case.

¶23

Accordingly, MA No.388/25 stands allowed and delay is condoned, subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal

¶24

¶25

Services Authority on or before 09.01.2026 by the applicant and to file the compliance report before the Registry.

¶26

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.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

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

¶29

(Dictated to Steno (Arti), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 19^th day of December, 2025)

Hdfc Bank v. Satkunam S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Satkunam S

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

Idbi Bank versus M/S Pranav Foundations Private Limited

Andhra Bank versus S B Agencies

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

Punjab National Bank versus Mr G M Sajjad Parvez And Other

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Mahek Udyog

C Krishnamurthy versus Indian Overseas Bank