Allowed

Central Bank of India v. Mr Balaraman Prop Sri Jeyam Engineering D

DRT20 Feb 2025MA/81/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed an application to condone a 2878-day delay in restoring an original application dismissed for non-prosecution in 2016. The court directed the bank to pay costs and barred interest for the delay period conditional upon the OA's success.

What did the court decide?

MAs 81/25 & 82/25 allowed; OA restored to file for processing evidence subject to payment of costs and compliance with filing deadlines.

Central Bank of India versus Mr Balaraman Prop Sri Jeyam… — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

MAs 81.25 & 82/25 in OA 502/2014

¶2

20.02.2025

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 20^th day of February, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

Misc. Application Nos. 81/25 & 82/25 in OA No.502 of 2014

¶8

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

¶9

D. Balaraman Proprietor of Sri Jeyam Engineering Plot No.1, New Kumaran Nagar 17^th Cross Street Sholinganallur Chennai – 600 119

¶10

.….Respondent / Defendant

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : Mr. S. Parthasarathy

¶13

: -ORDER ON MA NOs. 81/25 & 82/25-:

¶14

MA 81/25 is filed by applicant bank praying to condone delay of 2878 days

¶15

in filing restoration petition and MA 82/25 is filed to restore OA, which was dismissed for default on 26.12.2016.

¶16

The Original Application is filed by the Petitioner/Applicant Bank against the Defendants, seeking main relief to order the Defendants pay a sum of Rs.26,82,873/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Eight Two Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Three only) together with future interest and costs.

¶17

MAs 81.25 & 82/25 in OA 502/2014

¶18

¶19

20.02.2025

¶20

The Applicant Bank has filed the present petitions i.e., MA No. 81/25 & 82/25 along with affidavit of Sh. Kislay, Senior Manager of applicant bank submitting that the defendant availed Cash Credit facility of Rs.10 lakhs, Term Loan for purchase of Machinery and Equipment for Rs.24.80 lakhs and had executed the loan documents.

¶21

It is further submitted that the applicant bank did not take steps to comply the PA before this Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 23.09.2016 had directed the applicant to comply with the office objections and rectify the defects in the PA of the bank. The applicant failed to rectify the defects in the PA and the matter stood posted to 26.12.2016. The Tribunal on 26.12.20216 dismissed the OA for non-prosecution.

¶22

The PA and original documents were filed by the applicant which stood posted for rectification of defects. 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 26.12.2016. The counsel for the applicant had miserably failed to follow up the matter for past 8 years and had not reported the dismissal of the suit even after persistent efforts to contact the counsel. Further, the 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 2878 days in filing petition to restore the OA.

¶23

The applicant bank changed the counsel and present application is filed by the change of counsel.

¶24

Heard and perused the records of the case.

¶25

MAs 81.25 & 82/25 in OA 502/2014

¶26

¶27

20.02.2025

¶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 2878 days delay.

¶29

The applicant bank has admitted the casualness attitude of their counsel 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 08.10.2014 and sufficient opportunity was given to applicant bank to adduce the PA and documents from 12.11.2014, 08.01.2015, 09.02.2015, 25.01.2016, 04.03.2016, 30.03.2016, 11.05.2016, 13.05.2015, 18.06.2015, 27.07.2015, 03.09.2015, 16.10.2015, 29.06.2016, 09.08.2016, 23.09.2016 and 16.11.2016. After giving sufficient opportunity, the applicant bank did not adduce the evidence; hence OA was dismissed for non-prosecution on 26.12.2016.

¶30

Admittedly, it is also seen from the case papers that the changed counsel has filed vakalat on 03.12.2024 and MA is filed 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.

¶31

The applicant bank, being financial institution, who is holding the public money under Trust has not acted diligently in prosecuting their case with the Advocate and without any proper and justifiable reason, have changed their counsel and have filed the present MA to condone the delay.

¶32

The present OA is filed for recovery of Rs.26,97,239/- and inspite of sufficient opportunity, have not adduced their evidence to substantiate their OA

¶33

MAs 81.25 & 82/25 in OA 502/2014

¶34

20.02.2025

¶35

¶36

claim, and did not adduce the evidence for more than two years and has now come up with application to condone the delay in representing the PA and OD.

¶37

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 feels it apt to condone the delay of 2878 days and restore the OA and give last opportunity to applicant to adduce their evidence along with documents.

¶38

Accordingly, MA Nos. 81/25 & 82/25 stands allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to DRT & DRAT Bar Association, Chennai on or before 06.03.2025 by the applicant bank and to file the payment of compliance report before the Registrar Court on 10.03.2025.

¶39

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 2878 days from the defendants and file a memo of calculation at the time of adjudicating the 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.

¶40

In case of the applicant complying with the order, OA stands restored to file for processing of proof affidavit and documents before the Registrar’s Court on 10.03.2025. It is clarified that in case if the applicant bank fails to comply with the conditional order above, MAs stand dismissed automatically without there being any need to pass separate order.

¶41

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

¶42

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 20^th day of February, 2025)

Central Bank of India v. Mr Balaraman Prop Sri Jeyam Engineering D

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Central Bank of India v. Mr Balaraman Prop Sri Jeyam Engineering D

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

Icici Bank Limited versus Anand

State Bank of India versus Jayaraj

Madhavan versus Indian Bank

Punjab National Bank versus Ms Sai Coumputer and Stationery

R R and Co. versus Union Bank of India

Mrs B Bhuvana and R Guru Abishek versus Punjab National Bank