The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application for condonation of a 1036-day delay in re-presenting an Original Application filed by Bank of India for debt recovery, relying on a precedent.
Condonation of 1036 days' delay in re-presenting OA; payment of Rs. 3,000 cost to TNSLSA required.
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 07th day of August 2026
Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer
M.A. No.134 of 2026 in OA Dy.No.3433 of 2023
Bank of India, Rep by its Senior Branch Manager, Adyar Branch, Nos. 68 & 39, Teachers colony, 3rd cross street, Kasturba Nagar, Adyar, Chennai- 600020 ...Applicant
-Vs-
Chennai- 600024
S/o Sivagurunathan, 8/18, 3rd street, Sakthi flats, Gopalapuram, Chennai- 600086 …Defendants
Counsels on record / appeared:
Counsel for Applicant : M/s. R. Sriram
ORDER IN MA No.134/2026
recovery of sum of Rs.38,51,703/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Lakhs Fifty One Thousand Seven Hundred And Three only) together with interest and
2
costs. It is submitted that the OA file was returned on 23.06.2023 by the Registry for compliance of returns. As settlement talks were going on between applicant and the defendant, which could not fructify later. However, the same was not communicated to the counsel on record. Thereafter, the applicant bank had contacted the counsel, who filed condone delay petition. On enquiry with the Registry, the condone delay petition was not available in the bundle, which was traced out at a later point 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 1036 days in representing the OA.
Perused the Affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicant bank
and the records of the case.
of Hon’ble High Court of Madras (At Madurai) in the judgment of
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
Services Authority on or before 04.09.2026 by the applicant and to file the compliance report before the Registry.
automatically without there being any need to pass separate order.
Sd/-
(S.V. GOWRAMMA) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI
(Dictated to Roshnee, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 07th day of August, 2026)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to condone a delay of 1036 days in re-presenting an Original Application for debt recovery.
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
Bank of India, Rep by its Senior Branch Manager
M/s CERT Technologies
S. Balaguru
S.V. GOWRAMMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
S.V. GOWRAMMA
Parties & counsel
