Allowed

Bank of India v. Hari Ganesh

DRT19 Dec 2025MA/391/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application for condonation of delay of 154 days in re-presenting an original application for recovery. The delay was attributed to the counsel's office shifting and required payment of court fees and filing a compliance report.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 154 days in re-presenting the Original Application was condoned subject to payment of fees and filing a compliance report.

Bank of India versus Hari Ganesh — 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.391 of 2025 in OA Dy. No.5513/2023

¶6

Bank of India, Rep. by its Constituted Attorney, Having branch office at: KK Nagar Branch, 456, R K Shanmugam Salai, KK Nagar, Chennai – 600 078 ...Applicant

¶7

-Vs-

¶8

Mr. Hari Ganesh Shankar, New No.9, Old No.72, Atallah Towers, T Block,

¶9

9^th Street, Tower Club,

¶10

Anna Nagar,

¶11

Chennai-600 040

¶12

Mrs Roopa Hari Ganesh W/o Mr. Hari Ganesh Shankar New No.9, Old No.72, Atallah Towers, T Block,

¶13

9^th Street, Tower Club,

¶14

Anna Nagar,

¶15

Chennai-600 040 ….Defendants

¶16

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶17

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. B. Deepak Narayanan

¶18

ORDER IN MA No. 391/2025

¶19

MA No. 391 of 2025 is taken up. This is an application filed by

¶20

applicant bank for condonation of delay of 154 days in re-presenting the OA.

¶21

¶22

Perused the Affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicant bank.

¶23

It is submitted by applicant bank that the present OA was filed for recovery of sum of Rs.23,47,094.73p together with interest and costs. It is submitted by the applicant bank that the Original Application was returned by the Registry on 19.03.2025 for complying with the returns by four weeks. It is submitted that due to the shifting of the office of the counsel on record for the applicant bank, the OA could not be processed and proceeded within time. 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 154 days in representing the OA.

¶24

Perused the Affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicant bank and

¶25

the records of the case.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

Accordingly, MA No.391/25 stands allowed and delay is condoned, subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal

¶31

¶32

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

¶33

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.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

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

¶36

(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)

Bank of India v. Hari Ganesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Hari Ganesh

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