Allowed

Bank of India v. Ms.Sivasankari.G

DRT17 Jul 2026MA/164/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application for condonation of a 232-day delay in re-presenting an Originating Application. The court relied on a High Court judgment to permit the Applicant Bank to file the report and proceed with recovery proceedings upon payment of costs.

What did the court decide?

MA No.164/26 stands allowed and delay is condoned subject to payment of cost and filing compliance report.

Bank of India versus Ms.Sivasankari.G — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶3

Dated this the 17^th day of July 2026

¶4

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶5

M.A. No.164 of 2026 in OA Dy.No.2059/2024

¶6

Bank of India, Porur branch Represented by its Branch Manager, No.69/1, Kundrathur road, Madanandapuram, Porur, Chennai- 600 125 Kancheepuram district, Tamilnadu

¶7

...Applicant

¶8

-Vs-

¶9

Mrs. Sivasankari.G, W/o Mr. Sathiyaarayanan.V No.15, Arun nagar, Thirunidravur, Chennai, Kanchipuram, Tamilnadu- 602 024

¶10

Mr. Sathiyanarayanan. V S/o Mr. Venkatesan, Plot no. No.15, Arun nagar, Thirunidravur, Chennai, Kanchipuram, Tamilnadu- 602 024 …Defendants

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. R. Kumari

¶13

ORDER IN MA No.164/2026

¶14

MA No.164 of 2026 is taken up. This is an application filed by

¶15

applicant bank for condonation of delay of 232 days in re-presenting the OA.

¶16

Perused the Affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicant bank.

¶17

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

¶18

recovery of sum of Rs.47,69,921.78p (Rupees Forty Seven Lakhs Sixty

¶19

Uploaded on17.07.2026 at 13:30 hours

¶20

¶21

Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty One and Seventy Eight Paise Only) together with interest and costs. It is submitted that the OA file was returned for translation of full Tamil document by the Registry on 18.08.2025. As the OA the book was misplaced, the OA could not be represented 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 232 days in re-presenting the OA.

¶22

Perused the Affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicant bank

¶23

and the records of the case.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

Accordingly, MA No.164/26 stands allowed and delay is condoned, subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority on or before 10.08.2026 by the applicant and to file the compliance report before the Registry.

¶28

In case of the applicant complying with the order and filing compliance memo, Registry is directed to number the OA, if otherwise

¶29

Uploaded on17.07.2026 at 13:30 hours

¶30

¶31

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

¶32

automatically without there being any need to pass separate order.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

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

¶35

(Dictated to Roshnee, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 17^th day of July, 2026)

¶36

Uploaded on17.07.2026 at 13:30 hours

Bank of India v. Ms.Sivasankari.G

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Ms.Sivasankari.G

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

Equital Small Finance Bank Limited versus Sri Bhavani Amman Engineering Works

Bank of Baroda versus Ms Shinko Equipments

Canara Bank versus Chitra

City Union Bank Limited versus Purasawakam Santhatha Sanga Nidhi Limited

Yrs Garments versus Indian Bank

State Bank of India versus Mura Silks