Allowed

Yes Bank v. Pr Engineers and Contractors

DRT15 May 2026MA/103/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal condoned a 148-day delay in re-presenting an Original Application filed by a bank for recovery of money, attributing the delay to the health of the dealing counsel, relying on a Madras High Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 148 days condoned; applicant directed to pay Rs. 2,000 to TAN State Legal Services Authority and file compliance report by 19.06.2026.

Yes Bank versus Pr Engineers and Contractors — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶3

Dated this the 15^th day of May, 2026

¶4

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶5

M.A. No. 103 of 2026 in OA Dy. No. 855/2024

¶6

Yes bank, Represented by its Assistant Vice president, No.3, Dass India Towers, Second Line Beach, Parrys, Chennai- 600 001

¶7

...Applicant

¶8

-Vs-

¶9

PR Engineers and Contractors,

¶10

By its partnership concern, No.75, 1^st floor, Ettiyappan street, Golden George Nagar, Nerkundram, Chennai- 600 107

¶11

Vepamanu Yuvaraj,

¶12

S/o Vepamanu Narasimhulu, Rep by its Partner No.1, No.75, 1^st floor, Ettiyappan Street, Golden George Nagar, Nerkundram, Chennai- 600 107

¶13

Vepamanu Ramulu, S/o Vepamanu Narasimhulu, Rep by its Partner No.2, Old No.75, New No.12, Kovil Street, South park road, Anna Nagar west, Near house board, Chennai- 600 040 …Defendants

¶14

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶15

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. R.Sreedhar

¶16

ORDER IN MA No. 103/2026

¶17

MA No.103 of 2026 is taken up. This is an application filed by applicant bank for condonation of delay of 148 days in re-presenting the OA.

¶18

Uploaded on 15.05.2026 at 17:05 hours

¶19

¶20

Perused the Affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicant bank.

¶21

It is submitted by applicant bank that the present OA was filed for recovery of sum of Rs.27,70,593.53p together with interest and costs. The original application was returned on 19.08.2024 by the Registry for compliance of defects. It is submitted that as the dealing counsel was affected with some health issues and he left the office without giving proper information. Hence OA could not be re-presented within the time granted by this Tribunal, which is neither wilful nor wanton, but only due to aforesaid reasons. Therefore, the applicant bank prayed for condonation of delay of 148 days in representing the OA.

¶22

Perused the Affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicant bank and the records of the case.

¶23

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

¶24

V.P. Rajula -Vs.- K.J. Sakadeva Raja reported in LAWS (MAD)-

¶25

2020-8-441 feels it apt to condone the delay and give opportunity to applicant to prosecute their case.

¶26

Accordingly, MA No.103/26 stands allowed and delay is condoned, subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority on or before 19.06.2026 by the applicant and to file the compliance report before the Registry.

¶27

Uploaded on 15.05.2026 at 17:05 hours

¶28

¶29

In case of the applicant complying with the order and filing compliance memo, 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

¶30

to comply with the conditional order above, MA stand dismissed automatically without there being any need to pass separate order.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

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

¶33

(Dictated to Roshnee, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 15^th day of May, 2026)

¶34

Uploaded on 15.05.2026 at 17:05 hours

Yes Bank v. Pr Engineers and Contractors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yes Bank v. Pr Engineers and Contractors

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

State Bank of India versus Sangaranarayanan P

Dena Bank versus M/s Vinayaga Enterprises

Rajalakshmi versus Bank of India

M Praveen Kumar versus City Union Bank Limited

Sri Kumaran Stores versus Canara Bank

A.Jagadesh Kumar versus Union Bank of India