The Tribunal condoned a delay of 755 days by the applicant bank in re-presenting an Original Application for money recovery, relying on High Court precedent, subject to payment of costs and filing a compliance report.
Condonation of delay of 755 days in re-presenting the OA, subject to payment of Rs.3,000/- cost and filing compliance report.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI
Dated this the 05th day of June, 2026
Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer
M.A. No.120 of 2026 in OA Dy. No.372/2023
State Bank of India, O.M.R Branch, Represented by its Manager, New No.4/952 & 4/952A 3rd floor, Rajiv Gandhi salai, Perungudi, Chennai- 600096
...Applicant
-Vs-
Anna Nedunchalai, Kandanchavadi- 600096
Counsels on record / appeared:
Counsel for Applicant : M/s. A.K.L.Jayakamal Rayudu
ORDER IN MA No. 120/2026
applicant bank for condonation of delay of 755 days in re-presenting the OA.
recovery of sum of Rs.20,06,590/- (Rupees Twenty lakhs six thousand five hundred and ninety only) together with interest and costs. It is
2
submitted that the OA bundle was returned on 21.03.2023 by the Registry for compliance of office objections. During that period the counsel’s office underwent shifting of the office premises and replacement
of record bundles, during which several cases were mixed up and remained inaccessible for considerable time. The subject case file was lost during the said period, which was traced out at a later point of time. 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 755 days in representing the OA.
Perused the Affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicant bank and the records of the case.
V.P. Rajula -Vs.- K.J. Sakadeva Raja reported in LAWS (MAD)-
2020-8-441 feels it apt to condone the delay and give opportunity to applicant to prosecute their case.
3
to comply with the conditional order above, MA stand dismissed automatically without there being any need to pass separate order.
(S.V. GOWRAMMA) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay of 755 days in re-presenting the Original Application for recovery of money can be condoned.
Whether the applicant bank is entitled to opportunity to prosecute their case considering it is a custodian of public money held under trust.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
V.P. Rajula -Vs.- K.J. Sakadeva RajaRelied on¶24
V.P. Rajula -Vs.- K.J. Sakadeva Raja reported in LAWS (MAD) 2020-8-441
State Bank of India, O.M.R Branch
Padma Prasad
Jayashree
S.V. Gowramma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
