Dismissed

Central Bank of India v. Mr Kamaraj Prop Jayalakshmi Industries S

DRT25 Nov 2025MA/63/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal rejected an application by a bank to condone a delay of over seven years in filing a restoration petition. The court dismissed the plea, holding the bank failed to adequately explain the casualness and delay caused by previous counsel, applying Supreme Court principles on laches.

What did the court decide?

Applications for condonation of delay and restoration of the original application were dismissed. No order as to costs.

Central Bank of India versus Mr Kamaraj Prop Jayalakshmi… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

MAs 62/25 & 63/25 in TA 332/2025

¶2

25.11.2025

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 25^th day of November, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

Misc. Application Nos. 62/25 & 63/25 in TA No.332 of 2025

¶8

Central Bank of India Adyar Branch No.28, 2^nd Main Road Kasturi Bai Nagar Adyar Chennai – 600 020 ….Petitioner / Applicant -Vs-

¶9

Sh. S. Kamaraj Proprietor of M/s Jayalakshmi Industries Plot No.150/11, Pondicherry Street Chemmencherry Chennai – 600 119

¶10

Also at

¶11

Sh. S. Kamaraj S/o Saminathan No.2/73A, Jagjeevan Ram Salai Deivanai Illam, Chemmancherry Chennai – 600 119 .….Respondent / Defendant

¶12

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : Sh. S. Parthasarathy : -ORDER ON MA NOs.62/25 & 63/25-:

¶14

MA 62/25 is filed by applicant bank praying to condone delay of 2658 days in filing restoration petition and MA 63/25 is filed to restore OA, which was dismissed for default on 03.08.2017.

¶15

MAs 62/25 & 63/25 in TA 332/2025

¶16

25.11.2025

¶17

¶18

The Original Application is filed by the Petitioner/Applicant Bank against the Defendant, seeking main relief to order the Defendants pay a sum of Rs.26,32,351/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty One only) together with future interest and costs.

¶19

The Applicant Bank has filed the present petitions i.e., MA No. 62/25 & 63/25 along with affidavit of Sh. Kislay, Senior Manager of applicant bank submitting that the defendant availed Cash Credit facility of Rs.10 lakhs and Term Loan for purchase of Machinery and Equipment for Rs.23 lakhs and had executed the loan documents.

¶20

It is further submitted that the applicant bank did not take steps to comply the returns in the Proof Affidavit before this Tribunal, which was subsequently complied and Proof Affidavit and documents were found to be in order. However, as the applicant failed to produce the deponent for marking, the OA came to be dismissed for default and nonprosecution.

¶21

It is submitted that the counsel appearing for the applicant bank did not appear even after several adjournments and hence the Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the OA for default and non-prosecution on 03.08.2017. The counsel for the applicant had miserably failed to follow up the matter for past 7 years and had not reported the dismissal of the suit even after persistent efforts to contact the counsel. Further, the

¶22

MAs 62/25 & 63/25 in TA 332/2025

¶23

¶24

25.11.2025

¶25

periodical transfer of the Branch Manager and misplacement of papers resulted in unnoticing of the dismissal of the OA. The present application is filed to condone the delay of 2658 days in filing petition to restore the OA.

¶26

It is submitted by the applicant bank that as the erstwhile counsel did not follow up the case, they had changed the counsel and present application is filed by the change of counsel. The applicant bank had already filed proof affidavit and documents. The delay caused is neither willful nor wanton but only due to aforesaid reasons.

¶27

Heard Ld. Counsel appearing for applicant and perused the records of the case.

¶28

The applicant bank’s counsel has relied on the judgment of the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madras (At Madurai) in the case of V.P. Rajula -Vs.- K.J. Sakadeva Raja reported in LAWS (MAD)2020-8-441 and submits that the delay has to be condoned along with costs and in case, if the applicant bank succeeds against the respondents, they are not entitled to claim any interest for the period of 2658 days delay.

¶29

The applicant bank had also relied on the judgment of this Tribunal passed in MA Nos.81/25 & 82/25 in OA No.502 of 2014, in a similar matter and submitted that the said MAs were allowed subject to costs and it was also ordered that the applicant bank shall not claim interest

¶30

MAs 62/25 & 63/25 in TA 332/2025

¶31

25.11.2025

¶32

¶33

for the delayed period (2878 days) and hence prayed for allowing the MAs in those lines.

¶34

The applicant bank has admitted the casualness attitude of their counsel and the Manager in not dealing with the matter diligently. Further, the records of the case clearly reveals that the present OA pertains to the year 2014 and the defendant remained ex-parte on 14.10.2014 and sufficient opportunity was given to applicant bank to rectify the PA and documents from 16.12.2014, 02.02.2015, 25.02.2015, 05.03.2015, 16.04.2015, 26.05.2015, 02.07.2015, 12.08.2015, 21.09.2015, 05.11.2015, 22.12.2015, 08.02.2016, 17.03.2016, 09.06.2016, 21.07.2016, 11.08.2016, 27.09.2016, 17.11.2016 and 21.12.2016 respectively, and for marking of documents from 02.02.2017, 10.03.2017, 06.04.2017, 09.05.2017 and 19.06.2017 respectively. After availing sufficient opportunity, as the applicant bank

¶35

did not produce the deponent for marking of documents, the OA was dismissed for non-prosecution on 03.08.2017.

¶36

Admittedly, it is also seen from the case papers that the changed counsel has filed the MA on 13.12.2024. Even from the date of change of vakalat in December, 2024, applicant bank’s counsel has filed MA without any proper justification for the delay in filing the present MA.

¶37

The applicant bank, being financial institution, who is holding the public money under Trust has not acted diligently in prosecuting their

¶38

MAs 62/25 & 63/25 in TA 332/2025

¶39

25.11.2025

¶40

¶41

case with the Advocate and without any proper and justifiable reason, have changed their counsel, only to file MA to condone the delay.

¶42

The present OA is filed for recovery of Rs.26,32,351/- and inspite of sufficient opportunity, have not prosecuted the case diligently to substantiate their OA claim, and did not adduce the evidence for more than two years and has now come up with application to condone the delay in filing the restoration petition.

¶43

In the instant matter the applicant bank had failed to make a case to condone each day’s delay by producing documents in support of their case without any justifiable reasons. However, the delay cannot be condoned on equitable grounds and in support of its view, the reliance is placed on the Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled Lingeswaran Vs. Thirunagalingam [SLP 2054-2055/2022] wherein it is observed that an application for condonation of delay has to be dismissed, if it is found that the delay is not properly explained and that the period of limitation cannot be extended on equitable ground. Otherwise, it would be giving a premium to a person who fails to explain the delay and who is guilty of delay and laches.

¶44

Although this 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

¶45

had allowed the MAs for condonation of delay and restoration in OA No.502/2014, the Tribunal is of the opinion that bank is taking advantage

¶46

MAs 62/25 & 63/25 in TA 332/2025

¶47

25.11.2025

¶48

¶49

of the situation and coming up with similar applications with huge number of days of delay without properly explaining the delay. As the applicant bank failed to explain each day’s delay, this Tribunal finds no merit in the application and hence MA for condonation of delay of 2658 days in filing petition to restore OA is liable to be dismissed.

¶50

In view of the foregone, MA No.62/25 stands dismissed. Consequently, MA No.63/25 also stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶51

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

¶52

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 25^th day of November, 2025)

Central Bank of India v. Mr Kamaraj Prop Jayalakshmi Industries S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Central Bank of India v. Mr Kamaraj Prop Jayalakshmi Industries 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

Mr Kumar Son of Kutti versus Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited

Uma versus South Indian Bank

Indian Overseas Bank versus Rajeswari M

State Bank of India versus M/S Aikya Agency

State Bank of India versus Hemnath

Punjab National Bank versus Chetan Kapil Dev Sharma