Allowed

Indian Bank v. Orchid Gold Pvt. Ltd.

DRT1 Aug 2025TA/1972/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed a petition to condone a 4141-day delay in filing a substitution petition. It permitted M/s Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd., as assignee of Indian Bank, to be added as a party to continue the recovery proceedings instead of the original bank applicant under the SARFAESI Act.

What did the court decide?

MA No.235/25 allowed condoning delay of 4141 days; MA No.100/25 allowed; assignee permitted to continue TA.

Indian Bank versus Orchid Gold Pvt. Ltd. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

MAs100/25 & 235/25 in TA No.1972/2023

¶2

01.08.2025

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 01^st day of August, 2025

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

M.A. Nos.100 of 2025 & 235 of 2025 in

¶8

T.A. No.1972 of 2023

¶9

M/s. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd., Arcil Arms Office,

¶10

No.1-G, 1^st Floor, Century Plaza No.560-562, Anna Salai, Teynampet,

¶11

Chennai – 600 018.

¶12

……Petitioner / Proposed Applicant

¶13

-Vs-

¶14

The Branch Manager, Indian Bank,

¶15

T.Nagar Branch, Chennai – 600 017. …Respondent/Applicant

¶16

M/s Orchid Gold Pvt. Ltd. No.9, Thandavamoorthy Nagar,

¶17

Valasaravakkam,

¶18

Chennai – 600 087.

¶19

Mr. R.Thiagarajan, No.9, Thandavamoorthy Nagar, Valasaravakkam,

¶20

Chennai – 600 087.

¶21

Tmt. V. Sangeetha No.25, Veerappa Nagar, Alwarthiru Nagar, Chennai – 600 087.

¶22

Mr. Velmurugan, No.9, Thandavamoorthy Nagar, Valasaravakkam, Chennai – 600 087.

¶23

R. Sukumaran

¶24

S/o T.Raghavan

¶25

MAs100/25 & 235/25 in TA No.1972/2023

¶26

01.08.2025

¶27

¶28

No.30, Kamarajar Nagar, Mannurpet, Chennai – 600 050. ….Respondents /Defendants

¶29

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶30

Counsel for Petitioner : M/s Shivakumar & Suresh

¶31

: - ORDER ON MA NOs.100/2025 & 235/2025- :

¶32

The Original Application is filed by the Indian Bank against the Defendants, seeking main relief to order the Respondents 2 to 6, who are Defendant Nos.2 to 6 to pay jointly and severally a sum of

¶33

Rs.18,27,193.38p (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand One Hundred and Ninety Three and Thirty Eight Paisa only) with further interest and costs.

¶34

The Petitioner has filed the present petitions i.e., MA No.100/2025& 235/2025 along with affidavit of Chief Manager – Sh. J. Yuvek, seeking to condone delay of 4141 days in filing substitution petition and to permit proposed applicant herein to be added as Assignee Applicant in place of applicant bank viz., Indian Bank to conduct the TA No.1972/2023.

¶35

It is submitted that the OA No.322/2007 (before DRT-II) was initiated by Indian Bank, which was subsequently transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.1972/2023. OA was decreed on 21.08.2007 and DRC No.481 of 2007 was also issued. During the pendency of OA, the applicant bank has assigned the debts to M/s

¶36

MAs100/25 & 235/25 in TA No.1972/2023

¶37

01.08.2025

¶38

¶39

Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited vide Assignment Agreement dated 30.12.2013.

¶40

It is further submitted that after getting the original Assignment Deed, the petitioner had approached the Registry of DRT-II, Chennai to locate the OA papers for filing substitution petition. However the file was not traceable from the record room. When the file was traced out, the Tribunal was shifted to the present premises from old premises during 2021 and once again the file could not be traced. In the meanwhile, the OA got transferred to this Tribunal due to bifurcation of jurisdiction and was renumbered as TA No.1972 of 2023 by the Registry. Hence there was a delay of 4141 days in filing substitution petition and the delay caused is neither willful nor wanton but only due to aforesaid reason.

¶41

It is therefore submitted that applicant company in the capacity of being an Assignee of M/s Indian Bank in respect of loan account of respondents 2 to 6, may be permitted to be added as a party in the above TA No.1972/2023.

¶42

Heard the counsel for petitioner and perused the records of the case .

¶43

The applicant, being a financial institution has filed the OA for recovery of a sum of Rs.18,27,193.38p along with interest and for sale of mortgaged properties. OA was filed before DRT-II, Chennai and assigned OA No.322/2007. Final order in the OA was passed on

¶44

MAs100/25 & 235/25 in TA No.1972/2023

¶45

01.08.2025

¶46

¶47

21.08.2007 and DRC No.481 of 2007 also came to be issued. Subsequently, due to bifurcation of jurisdiction, OA was transferred to this Tribunal and re-numbered as TA No.1972 of 2023. During the pendency of recovery proceedings, Indian Bank had assigned the debt along with underlying securities to the assignee M/s Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited vide Assignment Agreement dated 30.12.2013, which is registered as Doc. No. 1766 of 2014 before the Sub Registrar, Virugambakkam, Chennai. The said Assignment Agreement has been executed in terms of Section 5 (1)(b) of SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶48

In view of the fact that the M/s Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited being a financial institution, is the custodian of the public money held under trust, the Tribunal feels it apt to allow the MA and permit the assignee to continue the TA in place of assignor bank, as per the Assignment Agreement.

¶49

Accordingly, MA No.235/25 stands allowed, condoning the delay of 4141 days in filing substitution petition. Consequently MA 100/25 also stands allowed. Applicant to carry out amendment and file amended copy of TA, after sending copy of amended TA to the defendants and file proof thereof.

¶50

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

¶51

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 01^st day of August, 2025)

Indian Bank v. Orchid Gold Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Bank v. Orchid Gold Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Mr K Sasikumar

Ms Ganapathy Traders versus Canara Bank

City Union Bank Limited versus M/S Es R Es Impex

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Jaya Enterprises

Bank of India versus M/S Ganapathi Enterprises

Bank of India versus M/S Win Tech Cnc