Allowed

Karnataka Bank Limited v. Tharani Trading Company

DRT24 Jul 2026MA/169/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application sought condonation of a 288-day delay in re-presenting an Original Application for money recovery due to internal administrative lapses. The Tribunal relied on a High Court judgment to condone the delay, subject to payment of costs and compliance.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay of 288 days in re-presenting the OA, subject to payment of Rs. 3,000/- to the TN State Legal Services Authority and filing a compliance report.

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Tharani Trading Company — 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.169 of 2026 in OA Dy.No.5518/2023

¶6

Karnataka Bank Limited, No.53, TNHB Main road, Kakkalur By pass, Thiruvallur- 602 001

¶7

...Applicant

¶8

-Vs-

¶9

M/s Tharani Trading company Rep by its Partnersh Mr. Muneeswaran M and

¶10

Mr. Arulmozhivarman Jayaram, F3, No.22 A &B, Sri Narayana Apartment, MTH road, Villivakkam,

¶11

Chennai- 600 049

¶12

Mr. Arulmozhivarman Jayaram,

¶13

S/o Jayaram, T4, Block III Om Vignesha Castle, Bharat Nagar, Iyyenchery village,

¶14

Chennai- 603 210

¶15

Also at:

¶16

Mr. Arulmozhivarman Jayaram Plot No.2, Metro Nagar Second avenue, Alapakkam, Porur,

¶17

Chennai- 600 116

¶18

Mr. Muneeswaran.M S/o Muniya Samy, S-10, Grice Apartment, 3/2, Jothiramalingam street, West Mambalam, Chennai- 600 033

¶19

Mrs. Kanga Vel Pandi.M, W/o Muneeswaran S-10, Grice Apartment, 3/2, Jothiramalingam street, West Mambalam, Chennai- 600 033

¶20

…Defendants

¶21

Uploaded on 24.07.2026 at 16:00 hours

¶22

¶23

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶24

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. Ramalingam & Associates

¶25

ORDER IN MA No.169/2026

¶26

MA No.169 of 2026 is taken up. This is an application filed by applicant bank for condonation of delay of 288 days in re-presenting the OA.

¶27

Perused the Affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicant bank.

¶28

It is submitted by applicant bank that the present OA was filed for recovery of sum of Rs.80,04,539.75p together with interest and costs. The OA was returned by the Registry for compliance of objections. It is submitted that the previous Manager had demitted office and there was no authorized personal to sign the tabular column 3A of the OA. Further, after new officer’s appointment, during internal arrangement in the bank, the file got mixed up with other files and could be traced out only at a later point of time. 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 288 days in representing the OA.

¶29

Perused the Affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicant bank and the records of the case.

¶30

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

¶31

Uploaded on 24.07.2026 at 16:00 hours

¶32

¶33

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 to condone the delay and give opportunity to applicant to prosecute their case.

¶34

Accordingly, MA No.169/26 stands allowed and delay is condoned, subject to payment of cost of Rs.3,000/- 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.

¶35

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 automatically without there being any need to pass separate order.

¶36

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

¶37

(Dictated to Roshnee, typed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 24^th day of July, 2026)

¶38

Uploaded on 24.07.2026 at 16:00 hours

Karnataka Bank Limited v. Tharani Trading Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Bank Limited v. Tharani Trading Company

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

Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. versus Sarangapani

Federal Bank versus Sakthi

Vinod Sharma versus Karur Vysya Bank