Allowed

Hdfc Bank v. Sri Maheswari Transport

DRT12 Mar 2025MA/79/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT-III, Chennai allowed the applicants motion to condone a 369-day delay in re-presenting an Original Application arising from document retrieval issues, directing payment of costs and waiver of interest for the delay period.

What did the court decide?

Allowed; delay of 369 days condoned; directed to pay Rs. 10,000/ cost and waive interest for the delay period if successful.

Hdfc Bank versus Sri Maheswari Transport — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

MA 79/25 in OA Dy. No.3067/2023

¶2

12.03.2025

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 12^th day of March, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

M.A. No.79 of 2025 in O.A. Dy. No.3067 of 2023

¶8

M/s HDFC Bank Limited Represented by its Legal Manager and Autohrised Signatory No.110, CEEBROS Building Nelson Manickam Road Aminjikarai, Chennai – 600 029 Applicant

¶9

….Petitioner /

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

Sri Maheswari Transport

¶12

Rep. by its Proprietor

¶13

Mr. M. Ashok Kumar

¶14

No.43, 25^th Street, GKM Colony

¶15

Jawahar Nagar, Chennai – 600 082

¶16

M. Ashok Kumar

¶17

No.43, 25^th Street, Sathiyavani Muthu Street GKM colony, Jawahar Nagar, Chennai – 600 082

¶18

A. Umamaheswari No.43, 25^th Street, Sathiyavani Muthu Street GKM colony, Jawahar Nagar, Chennai – 600 082 ….Respondents / Defendants

¶19

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶20

Counsel for Applicant : M/s Acuity Law Associates : - ORDER ON MA NO.79 OF 2025- :

¶21

The present MA is filed by applicant bank praying to condone delay of

¶22

369 days in re-presentation of OA.

¶23

MA 79/25 in OA Dy. No.3067/2023

¶24

12.03.2025

¶25

¶26

The Original Application is filed by the Petitioner/Applicant Bank against the Defendants, seeking main relief to order the Defendant Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.1,66,96,012.41p (Rupees One Crore Sixty Six Lakhs Ninety Six Thousand and Twelve and Forty One Paise only) with further interest and costs.

¶27

In the affidavit of Mr. B. Sundarajan, Legal Manager of applicant bank, it is submitted that the OA has been returned for carrying out certain corrections and due to some logistical issues, it has taken quite a while for the bank to prove instructions to its counsel. The OA ought to have been represented before 19.06.2023, however the delay of 369 days had occurred due to aforesaid reason.

¶28

The case was taken up on 20.02.2025 and after perusal of records, applicant bank was directed to file better affidavit.

¶29

Therefore, applicant bank had filed affidavit of Ms. Mohana Balaji, Legal Manager and Authorised Signatory of applicant bank it is submitted that the OA was returned seeking certain loan documents to be produced along with the OA. Since the original loan documents were kept in the ware house of the Head Office at Mumbai, the same could not be retrieved immediately. Due to this reason, a certain amount of delay had occasioned in retrieving the documents. Before the retrieved documents could be hand delivered to the bank’s counsel, the same were misplaced in the applicant

¶30

MA 79/25 in OA Dy. No.3067/2023

¶31

¶32

12.03.2025

¶33

bank which could be traced out only during the month of June, 2024. Hence the delay of 369 days occurred, which is neither willful nor wanton. Hence applicant bank prayed for condoning the delay of 369 days in re-presenting the OA.

¶34

Heard the arguments of the applicant’s counsel and perused the records of the case.

¶35

On perusal of records, it is seen that when the MA was taken up on 20.02.2025, Tribunal directed the applicant bank to file better affidavit as the affidavit which was filed was bereft of any particulars. However, even in the affidavit now filed by applicant bank, there is no mention about the date of return and when the documents were traced out and when the OA was represented before the Tribunal. Moreover, the reason of missing of original documents attributed by the applicant bank for the delay in re-presentation, only shows that applicant bank, who is dealing with public money, is not diligent in prosecuting the case.

¶36

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. Rajula -Vs.- K.J. Sakadeva Raja reported in LAWS (MAD)-2020-8-441

¶37

MA 79/25 in OA Dy. No.3067/2023

¶38

12.03.2025

¶39

¶40

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

¶41

Accordingly, MA No.79/25 stands allowed and delay is condoned, subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to the DRT and DRAT Bar Association, Chennai on or before 25.03.2025 by the applicant and to file the compliance report before the Registrar Court on 27.03.2025.

¶42

Further, the Tribunal, placing reliance on the judgment supra , directs that in case if applicant bank succeeds in the OA, applicant bank shall not claim interest for the said period of 369 days from the defendants and file a memo of calculation at the time of adjudication of OA claim. The copy of this order be placed in the OA enabling to claim the exemption of interest at the time of final adjudication of OA.

¶43

In case of the applicant complying with the order, 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,

¶44

MA stand dismissed automatically without there being any need to pass separate order.

¶45

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

¶46

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

Hdfc Bank v. Sri Maheswari Transport

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Bank v. Sri Maheswari Transport

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

I Robinson Britto versus Indusind Bank Limited

Skp Metals versus Bank of Baroda

Bank of Baroda versus M/S Golden Textiles and Readymades

Indian Overseas Bank versus Rams International Co. And Two Others

Kayaar Exim versus Hdfc Bank

Dhananjayan versus Indian Bank