Allowed

Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. v. Sarangapani

DRT24 Jul 2026MA/166/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an application by a bank to condone a 106-day delay in re-presenting an Office Application for debt recovery, relying on a High Court judgment and conditioning approval on payment of costs and filing a compliance report.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay of 106 days in re-presenting the Office Application, subject to payment of cost and filing compliance report.

Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. versus Sarangapani — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶3

Dated this the 24^th day of July, 2026

¶4

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶5

M.A. No.166 of 2026 in OA Dy.No.3554/2024

¶6

M/s Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Private Limited, No.55-56, 5^th floor, Free press house, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400 021

¶7

Also at: Flat No.1-C, 1^st floor, H.M.H. Plaza, New No. 56(o) 105, G.N. Chetty road, T Nagar- 600 017, Rep by its Authorized Signatory, Mr. Vivek Arayakat

¶8

...Applicant

¶9

-Vs-

¶10

Mr.A. Sarangapani,

¶11

S/o Mr. C. Arjunan, No.6/8, Shivaji Ganesan street, S.V.Nagar, Oragadam (Puthur), Ambattur, Chennai- 600053

¶12

Mrs Rajeshwari, W/o Mr.A. Sarangapani, No.6/8, Shivaji Ganesan street, S.V.Nagar, Oragadam (Puthur), Ambattur, Chennai- 600053 …Defendants

¶13

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶14

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. K. Ramesh

¶15

ORDER IN MA No. 166/2026

¶16

MA No.166 of 2026 is taken up. This is an application filed by

¶17

applicant bank for condonation of delay of 106 days in re-presenting the

¶18

¶19

Perused the Affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicant bank.

¶20

Uploaded on 24.07.2026 at 16:00 hours

¶21

¶22

It is submitted by applicant bank that the present OA was filed for recovery of sum of Rs.2,55,80,914.50p together with interest and costs. It is submitted that the OA was returned by the Registry on 02.12.2025 for few corrections and compliance. The counsel’s junior had mistakenly tied the returned papers with other SA case without knowledge of the counsel. As the counsel was down with viral fever, the case papers could not be traced out immediately. 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 106 days in representing the OA.

¶23

Perused the Affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicant bank 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.166/26 stands allowed and delay is condoned,

¶28

subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority on or before 14.08.2026 by the applicant and to file the compliance report before the Registry.

¶29

Uploaded on 24.07.2026 at 16:00 hours

¶30

¶31

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

¶32

to comply with the conditional order above, MA stand dismissed automatically without there being any need to pass separate order.

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

this the 24^th day of July, 2026)

¶36

Uploaded on 24.07.2026 at 16:00 hours

Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. v. Sarangapani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. v. Sarangapani

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

State Bank of India versus Abdul Basith

Canara Bank versus N Elayaraja

Syndicate Bank versus M/S Abihil Agency

Federal Bank versus Sakthi

Vinod Sharma versus Karur Vysya Bank

Challani Ranka Jewellery versus Indian Overseas Bank