Allowed

Dbs Bank Limited v. a. Anbudurai

DRT2 Jul 2026MA/149/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed two miscellaneous applications condoning a 1526-day delay to substitute M/s Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited as the applicant, relying on its status as a financial institution holding public money in trust.

What did the court decide?

MAs 149/26 and 150/26 allowed; delay of 1526 days condoned; substitution of M/s Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited permitted.

Dbs Bank Limited versus a. Anbudurai — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

MAs 149/26 & 150/26 in TA No.1021/2025

¶2

02.07.2026

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 02^nd day of July, 2026

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

M.A. Nos.149/26 & 150/26

¶8

¶9

T.A. No.1021 of 2025

¶10

M/s. Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited No.1G, 1st Floor, Teynampet,

¶11

No. 560-562, Century Plaza,

¶12

Tamil Nadu, Chennai – 600 018

¶13

….Petitioner / Applicant

¶14

M/s DBS Bank India Limited (Formerly M/s The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited) Kodambakkam Branch

¶15

No.53, Arcot Road (Opp. To Meenakshi College)

¶16

Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024 …Applicant bank

¶17

-Vs–

¶18

Mr. A. Anbudurai S/o Arangannan

¶19

No.26, South Avenue

¶20

Sri Nagar Colony, Saidapet

¶21

Chennai – 600 015

¶22

Mrs. A.R. Valliammai Achi W/o Mr. A. Anbudurai No.26, South Avenue Sri Nagar Colony, Saidapet Chennai – 600 015

¶23

……Respondents/Defendants

¶24

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶25

Counsel for Petitioner : M/s. R. Umasuthan

¶26

: - ORDER ON MA NOs.149/26 & 150/26 - :

¶27

The Original Application is filed by M/s DBS Bank India Limited,

¶28

against the Defendants, seeking main relief to order the respondents 1 and

¶29

MAs 149/26 & 150/26 in TA No.1021/2025

¶30

02.07.2026

¶31

¶32

2, who are 1^st and 2^nd Defendants in the OA, to pay a sum of Rs.2,07,26,275.57p (Rupees Two Crores Seven Lakhs Twenty Six Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy Five and Fifty Seven Paise only) with further interest and costs.

¶33

The Petitioner has filed the present petitions i.e., MA No.149/26 and 150/26 along with affidavit of Authorised Signatory – Sh. J. vijayaraj, to condone the delay of 1526 days in filing substitution petition and to substitute the name of M/s Asset Reconstruction Company Limited to be added as assignee applicant in place of M/s DBS Bank India Limited to conduct the TA No.1021/2025.

¶34

It is submitted that the OA No.688/2019 (before DRT-II) was initiated by M/s Lakshmi Vilas Bank against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,07,26,275.57p together with contractual interest. During the pendency of OA, the applicant bank was substituted by DBS Bank vide order dated 29.03.2021. The said OA was allowed vide final order dated 31.03.2022 and DRC No.112 of 2022 came to be issued in terms of the final order. Subsequently, due to bifurcation of jurisdiction, the OA was transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.1021/2025. During the pendency of recovery proceedings, the applicant bank had assigned various loan accounts including the subject Loan of respondents 2 and 3, who are defendants / borrowers of credit facilities from DBS Bank India Limited since assigned to M/s Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited by way of Assignment Agreement dated 21.01.2022 registered as

¶35

MAs 149/26 & 150/26 in TA No.1021/2025

¶36

¶37

02.07.2026

¶38

Document No.5686 of 2023 before the office of the Registrar of Maharashtra.

¶39

It is further submitted that during the course of recovery proceedings, the petitioner had sold the one of the secured assets in the E-auction sale held on 23.03.2026 for a sale consideration of Rs.2,07,00,000/- and already petitioner has filed part satisfaction memo along with Form 11 for return of documents. Due to mistaken impression that there will not arise any delay on the part of petitioner in filing petition for substitution, MA for condonation of delay was not filed by the petitioner. Hence, there was a delay of 1526 days in filing MA seeking to substitute them in the place of applicant bank herein. The delay was only due to the aforesaid reasons, which is neither willful nor wanton.

¶40

Thus submitting, counsel prayed for condonation of delay in filing substitution petition and for substitution of proposed applicant in place of assignor, so as to record the settlement and take return of documents for handing it over to the respondents 1 and 2.

¶41

Heard the counsel for petitioner and perused the records of

¶42

the case .

¶43

The OA was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,07,26,275.57p along with interest and for sale of mortgaged properties by erstwhile applicant bank (The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited), before DRT-II, Chennai and assigned OA No.688/2019. During the pendency of the OA, the applicant bank, The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited had assigned the debt to DBS Bank India Limited. The OA came to be allowed vide final order dated 31.03.2022

¶44

MAs 149/26 & 150/26 in TA No.1021/2025

¶45

02.07.2026

¶46

¶47

and DRC No.112 of 2022 was issued in terms of the final order. Subsequently, due to bifurcation of jurisdiction, OA was transferred to this Tribunal and re-numbered as TA No.1021 of 2025. During the pendency of the OA, the applicant bank, the applicant bank had assigned the debt along with underlying securities to M/s Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited, vide Assignment Agreement dated 21.01.2022 registered as Document No.5686 of 2023 before the office of the Registrar of Maharashtra.

¶48

In view of the fact that M/s Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited 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 V.P. Rajula -Vs.K.J. Sakadeva Raja reported in LAWS (MAD)-2020-8-441 feels it apt

¶49

to condone the delay and to permit the assignee to continue the TA in place of assignor bank, as per the Assignment Agreement.

¶50

Accordingly, MAs 149/26 stands allowed condoning the delay of 1526 days in filing substitution petition. Consequently, MA No.150/26 also stands allowed permitting substitution of M/s Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited in place of applicant.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

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

¶53

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 02^nd day of July, 2026)

Dbs Bank Limited v. a. Anbudurai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dbs Bank Limited v. a. Anbudurai

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

Oriental Bank of Commerce versus Dhanasekar

Canara Bank versus Velu

Bank of India versus Ms Leo Vending Concepts

Kesavan K versus Indian Overseas Bank

K Kesavan versus Indian Overseas Bank

Shri Bharath Vasan versus State Bank of India