Allowed

United Bank of India v. Siva Sakthi Rice Industries

DRT3 Mar 2025MA/87/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Appellate Court restored an Original Application dismissed for non-prosecution filed by a bank. The bank failed to file an amended affidavit due to staff mix-ups during amalgamation. The court allowed restoration conditionally upon payment of costs.

What did the court decide?

Restoration of OA No.125/2018 allowed subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- costs and filing compliance report.

United Bank of India versus Siva Sakthi Rice Industries — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

MA 87/25 in OA No.125/2018

¶2

03.03.2025

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 03^rd day of March, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

M.A. No. 87 OF 2025 in OA No.125 of 2018

¶8

Punjab National Bank (Erstwhile United Bank of India) Pondicherry Branch No.310, Jawaharlal Nehru Street Pondicherry – 605 001 ….Petitioner / Applicant

¶9

-Vs-

¶10

Siva Sakthi Rice Industries

¶11

Rep. by its Partners – N.T. Sivakumar & Mrs. S. Priya

¶12

R.S. no.74, College Road Thanampalayam, Thavalakuppam

¶13

Pondicherry – 604 007

¶14

N.T. Sivakumar R.S. No.74, College Road Thanampalayam, Thavalakuppam Pondicherry – 604 007

¶15

Mrs. S. Priya R.S. No.74, College Road Thanampalayam, Thavalakuppam Pondicherry – 604 007 .….Respondents/Defendants

¶16

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶17

Counsel for Applicant : M/s P.S. Ganesh

¶18

:- ORDER ON MA NO. 87/2025 -:

¶19

MA 87/25 is filed by applicant bank praying to restore TA, which was

¶20

dismissed for non-prosecution on 22.07.2022.

¶21

The Original Application is filed by the Petitioner/Applicant Bank against the

¶22

Defendants, seeking main relief to order the Defendants pay a sum of

¶23

MA 87/25 in OA No.125/2018

¶24

¶25

03.03.2025

¶26

Rs.11,58,28,218.35p (Rupees Eleven Crores Fifty Eight Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Eighteen and Thirty Five Paise only) together with future interest and costs.

¶27

The Applicant Bank has filed the present petition i.e., MA No.87/25 along with affidavit of Ms. B. Saranya, Authorised Officer of applicant bank seeking to restore OA, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 22.07.2022.

¶28

It is submitted by applicant bank that during the pendency of OA, amendment in view of merger with Punjab National Bank was allowed by this Tribunal and the case was listed on 22.07.2022 for filing amended proof affidavit. As applicant bank did not file the same, OA came to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶29

It is submitted by applicant bank that the borrower’s loan account which was earlier with ARMB was transferred to Punjab National Bank, SASTRA Centre along with other accounts and case bundles. There was inadvertent mix up of case bundles and account files by the staffs during transit, which could be traced out only at a later point of time. Further, due to amalgamation process, the bank circle office was handing heavy work load and there was delay in co-ordination with the counsel also. Hence non-filing of proof affidavit is neither willful nor wanton but due to the aforesaid reason only and prayed for restoration of OA.

¶30

Heard and perused the records of the case .

¶31

The applicant, being a financial institution has filed the present restoration

¶32

petition for recovery of a sum of Rs.11,58,28,218.35p along with interest and for sale

¶33

MA 87/25 in OA No.125/2018

¶34

¶35

03.03.2025

¶36

of mortgaged properties. It is seen that the applicant has not filed proof affidavit subsequent to amendment despite availing substantial adjournments. Accordingly, OA came to be dismissed for default and non-prosecution on 22.07.2022.

¶37

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 restore the OA and give last opportunity to applicant to adduce their evidence along with documents.

¶38

Accordingly, MA 87/25 stands allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to the DRT and DRAT Bar Association, Chennai on or before 17.03.2025

¶39

by the applicant bank and to file the payment of compliance report before the Registrar Court on 20.03.2025.

¶40

In case of the applicant complying with the order, OA stands restored to file. It is clarified that in case if the applicant bank fails to comply with the conditional order above, MA stands 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 03^rd day of March, 2025)

United Bank of India v. Siva Sakthi Rice Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United Bank of India v. Siva Sakthi Rice Industries

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

Bank of India versus Gokulakrishnan

Indian Bank versus Mrs Poornima M Reddy And Other

Saminathan versus Bank of Baroda

S Vidyakaran versus Repco Home Finance Limited

State Bank of India versus M/S Pallava Buildcon

V Chitra and others versus M S Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company