Allowed

Canara Bank v. Sri Sai Auquatec

DRT19 Dec 2025MA/389/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application by Canara Bank to condone a delay of 235 days in re-filing an Order for reviewing an application. The court relied on a previous Madras High Court judgment, directing the bank to pay costs and comply with conditions before the Original Application could be numbered.

What did the court decide?

Condoned delay of 235 days subject to payment of Rs.1,000/- cost and filing a compliance report.

Canara Bank versus Sri Sai Auquatec — Civil Procedure and Limitation | 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.389 of 2025 in OA Dy. No.685/2022

¶6

Canara Bank,

¶7

Rep. by its Manager, Pondicherry Engineering College Branch, Pillaichavady,

¶8

Pondicherry. ...Applicant

¶9

-Vs-

¶10

M/s. Sri Sai Aquatech,

¶11

Rep. by its Prop., B. Kanya Kumari, Kirumambakkam Revenue Village, Pannithitu, Pondicherry 607 402

¶12

B. Kanya Kumari, W/o Sivarjde,

¶13

G.Sivarjde, S/o. Gopalakrishnan, Both 2 and 3 are at , 04, Kanagavalli Street, Pudupet, Laws pet Post,

¶14

Pondicherry 605 008 ….Defendants

¶15

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶16

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. P. Ganesh Kumar

¶17

ORDER IN MA No. 389/2025

¶18

MA No. 389 of 2025 is taken up. This is an application filed by

¶19

applicant bank for condonation of delay of 235 days in re-presenting the OA.

¶20

Perused the Affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicant bank.

¶21

¶22

It is submitted by applicant bank that the present OA was filed for recovery of sum of Rs.77,35,748/- together with interest and costs. It is submitted by the applicant bank that the Original Application was returned by the Registry on 17.12.2024 for complying with the returns by two weeks. It is submitted that the earlier counsel of the bank did not prosecute the case and comply with the queries. Subsequently, the present counsel was engaged and change of vakalat was given. Hence, the OA could not be represented 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 235 days in representing the OA.

¶23

Perused the Affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicant bank and

¶24

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

¶26

Rajula -Vs.- K.J. Sakadeva Raja reported in LAWS (MAD)-2020-8-

¶27

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

¶28

Accordingly, MA No.389/25 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 09.01.2026 by the applicant and to file the compliance report before the Registry.

¶29

¶30

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.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

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

¶33

(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)

Canara Bank v. Sri Sai Auquatec

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Sri Sai Auquatec

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