Allowed

Canara Bank v. P Kasthuri

DRT25 Jun 2026MA/141/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal considered an application by Canara Bank for condonation of a six-month-and-88-day delay in re-presenting an Original Application. Relying on a High Court precedent and noting the bank's role as a custodian of public funds, the court allowed the application and condoned the delay subject to payment of costs.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay of 688 days in re-presenting the Original Application, subject to payment of Rs.4,000/- costs and filing compliance report.

Canara Bank versus P Kasthuri — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶3

Dated this the 25^th day of June, 2026

¶4

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶5

M.A. No.141 of 2026 in OA Dy.No.95/2024

¶6

Canara Bank, Represented by its Branch Manager, Mandavelipakkam Branch, Chennai- 600028

¶7

...Applicant

¶8

-Vs-

¶9

M/s Jas Eco Tech,

¶10

Represented by its Proprietrix,

¶11

Mrs. P. Kasthuri,

¶12

Office at

¶13

S.No.236/16D, Sadayankuppam,

¶14

Manali, Chennai- 600103

¶15

Mrs.P.Kasthuri, No.3/131, Arulnatha nagar, Kulakarai street, Chinna mathur, Mathur,

¶16

Manali, Thiruvallur- 600068

¶17

Mr.Arul.P, S/o Mr.Pachaiappan (Guarantor) No.3/131, Arulnatha nagar, Kulakarai street, Chinna mathur, Mathur, Manali, Thiruvallur- 600068

¶18

Mr.P.Gopala Krishnan (Guarantor) S/o Mr.Pachaiappan No.3/131, Arulnatha nagar, Kulakarai street, Chinna mathur, Mathur, Manali, Thiruvallur- 600068 …Defendants

¶19

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶20

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. J.Jeya Sabare Eswaran

¶21

¶22

ORDER IN MA No.141/2026

¶23

MA No.141 of 2026 is taken up. This is an application filed by applicant bank for condonation of delay of 688 days in re-presenting the OA.

¶24

Perused the Affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicant bank.

¶25

It is submitted by applicant bank that the present OA was filed for recovery of sum of Rs.1,10,29,679/- together with interest and costs. It is submitted that the OA was returned by the Registry for compliance of defects. Due to change in bank’s panel Advocate, the delay occurred. 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 688 days in representing the OA.

¶26

Perused the Affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicant bank

¶27

and the records of the case.

¶28

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

¶29

of Hon’ble High Court of Madras (At Madurai) in the judgment of

¶30

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.

¶31

¶32

Accordingly, MA No.141/26 stands allowed and delay is condoned, subject to payment of cost of Rs.4,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority on or before 22.07.2026 by the applicant and to file the compliance report before the Registry.

¶33

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 to comply with the conditional order above, MA stand dismissed

¶34

automatically without there being any need to pass separate order.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

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

¶37

(Dictated to Roshnee transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 25^th of June, 2026)

Canara Bank v. P Kasthuri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. P Kasthuri

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

Hari Hara Sudhan Kn versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited

Ravina Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. versus Union Bank of India

Dbs Bank Limited versus M s a v Constructions

Punjab and Sind Bank versus Gowtham

Federal Bank versus Rajkumar

Karur Vysya Bank versus Ritz Steel Industries