Allowed

Indian Bank v. Right Line Enterprises

DRT6 Feb 2025MA/83/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed two miscellaneous applications filed by a bank to condone a 266-day delay in restoring an original application dismissed for non-prosecution. The Tribunal granted restoration subject to payment of costs and compliance within a stipulated period.

What did the court decide?

Restoration of the Original Application allowed subject to payment of Rs. 10,000 costs and compliance within 28 days.

Indian Bank versus Right Line Enterprises — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

MAs 32/25 & 83/25 in TA No.878/2023 (Old OA No.98/2020)

¶2

06.02.2025

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 06^th day of February, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

Misc. Application Nos. 32/25 & 83/25 in

¶8

TA No.878 of 2023

¶9

(Old OA No.98 of 2020 – DRT-II, Chennai)

¶10

M/s. Indian Bank, T. Nagar Branch, Rep by its Assistant General Manager No. 7, Prakasam Road, T. Nagar, Chennai - 600 017. ….Petitioner / Applicant -Vs-

¶11

M/s. Right Line Enterprises, Rep by its partners Mr. Usharani Murugesan & Mr. M. Mohan, No. 1/1A, First Floor, Quantazen Apartment, Dr. Thomas Road, IInd Floor, T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.

¶12

Mrs. Usharani Murugesan, W/o. M.A. Murugesan, Partner – M/s. Right Line Enterprises, E- Flat, Block No. 3, Shree Shelter Apartments, Near Jesus Nagar Bus Stop, Bharathidasan Street, Dr. BR. Ambedkar Nagar, Gerugambakkam, Chennai – 600 122.

¶13

Mr. M. Mohan, S/o. Mr. Meshak & Mrs. K. Theresita Partner - M/s. Right Line Enterprises No. 2-166, Periya Street, Villnkadubakkam, Thiruvallur – 600 052.

¶14

MAs 32/25 & 83/25 in TA No.878/2023 (Old OA No.98/2020)

¶15

¶16

06.02.2025

¶17

Mrs. K. Theresita D/o. Kannaya No. 100, Morden Line, 3^rd Street, Old Washermenpet, Chennai – 600 013.

¶18

And Also at:

¶19

Mrs. K. Theresita D/o. Kannaya No. 1/95, Thiruveedhi Amman Koil Street, Kottivakkam, Chennai – 600 041 ….Respondents/Defendants

¶20

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶21

Counsel for Applicant : Mr. C. Ramaiah

¶22

: -ORDER ON MA NOs. 32/25 & 83/25-:

¶23

MA No.32/25 & 83/25 is filed by applicant bank praying to condone delay of 266 days in filing restoration petition and MA No.17/24 is filed to restore TA, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 29.04.2024.

¶24

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.52,37,855/(Rupees Fifty Two Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Five Only) together with Interest @ 12.35% p.a. and costs.

¶25

The Applicant Bank has filed the present petitions i.e., MA No. 32/25 & 83/25 along with affidavit of Mrs. M. Sowndari, Assistant General Manager seeking to condone delay of 266 days in filing restoration petition and to restore OA which was dismissed for default and non-prosecution on 29.04.2024.

¶26

MAs 32/25 & 83/25 in TA No.878/2023 (Old OA No.98/2020)

¶27

¶28

06.02.2025

¶29

It is submitted by applicant bank that states that the Applicant Bank official was unable to get the publication material in time, when the matter came up for hearing on 29.04.2024 and hence the applicant counsel was not in a position to file the proof of service (Paper Publication). Hence the OA came to be dismissed on 29.04.2024. Although the counsel had informed about the dismissal, due to transfer of the then Manager, restoration petition could not be filed immediately. Hence the delay of 266 days occurred, which is neither willful nor wanton but only due to the aforesaid reason. Thus submitting, counsel prayed for condonation of delay and restoration of TA.

¶30

Heard and perused the records of the case .

¶31

The applicant, being a financial institution has filed the present restoration petition for recovery of a sum of Rs.52,37,855/- along with interest and for sale of mortgaged properties. It is seen that the applicant has not caused paper publication despite availing substantial adjournments. Accordingly, TA came to be dismissed for default and non-prosecution on 29.04.2024.

¶32

In view of the fact that the bank being a financial institution is the custodian of the public money held under trust, the Tribunal feels it apt to condone the delay and restore the OA and give last opportunity to applicant to adduce their evidence along with documents.

¶33

Accordingly, MA Nos. 32/25 & 83/25 stands allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services R Buildings, High Court Campus, A.D, N Fort Rd, Parrys, George Town, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600104 on or

¶34

MAs 32/25 & 83/25 in TA No.878/2023 (Old OA No.98/2020)

¶35

06.02.2025

¶36

¶37

before 28.02.2025 by the applicant bank and to file the payment of compliance report before the Registrar Court on 03.03.2025.

¶38

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.

¶39

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

¶40

(Dictated to Steno (Sudhakar), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 06^th day of February, 2025)

Indian Bank v. Right Line Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Bank v. Right Line Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank) versus M/S Om Sree Mathaji Engineers

M Vijay versus Axis Bank

Union Bank of India (Andhra Bank) versus M/S Om Sree Mathaji Engineers

Sangeethapriya and R Ravikumar D versus Hdb Financial Services Limited

South Indian Bank versus Nakodaa Computer Tech

I Umarani versus Canfin Home Ltd.