Allowed

Canara Bank v. M/s.Shri Devi Lamination

DRT25 Jun 2026MA/142/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an application for condonation of delay by Canara Bank to re-present an Original Application for recovery of funds, relying on a Madras High Court precedent, subject to payment of costs and filing a compliance report.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of 131-day delay in re-presenting the OA allowed subject to payment of Rs. 1,000 cost and filing of compliance report.

Canara Bank versus M/s.Shri Devi Lamination — Arbitration | 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.142 of 2026 in OA Dy.No.2499/2024

¶6

Canara Bank, Chennai Ambattur branch, Represented by its Senior Manager, Sri.M.Chennakesavalu, No.484, T.I cycles road, Ambattur, Chennai-600 053 ...Applicant

¶7

-Vs-

¶8

M/s Shri Devi Lamination, No.263/13, Kavarai street,

¶9

Athipet, Ambattur, Chennai- 600 058

¶10

Mr.C.Dinesh Kumar, S/o Mr. Chellapandi, Proprietor of M/s Shri Devi Laminations, No.484, T.I cycles road, Ambattur, Chennai-600 053 …Defendants

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. Kumari

¶13

ORDER IN MA No. 142/2026

¶14

MA No.142 of 2026 is taken up. This is an application filed by applicant bank for condonation of delay of 131 days in re-presenting the OA.

¶15

Perused the Affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicant bank.

¶16

It is submitted by applicant bank that the present OA was filed for

¶17

recovery of sum of Rs.20,09,719.26p together with interest and costs. It

¶18

¶19

is submitted that the OA file was returned by the Registry on 23.09.2024 for compliance. As the applicant bank could not co-ordinate with the counsel, the 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 131 days in representing the OA.

¶20

Perused the Affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicant bank

¶21

and the records of the case.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

Accordingly, MA No.142/26 stands allowed and delay is condoned, subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- 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.

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

to comply with the conditional order above, MA stand dismissed

¶29

automatically without there being any need to pass separate order.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

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

¶32

(Dictated to Roshnee, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court,

¶33

on this the 25^th of June, 2026)

Canara Bank v. M/s.Shri Devi Lamination

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. M/s.Shri Devi Lamination

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

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