The Tribunal allowed the bank's application for condonation of delay in re-presenting an Original Application for recovery of money, relying on a High Court judgment, and imposed costs.
Application MA No. 170/2026 allowed; delay of 177 days condoned; cost of Rs. 2,000 payable to TN State Legal Services Authority.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI
Dated this the 24th day of July 2026
Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer
M.A. No.170 of 2026 in OA Dy.No.1045/2024
M/s Bank of Maharashtra, Represented by its Chief Manager, Mr. Tulsiram Sahoo, No.16, East Mada street, Mylapore, Chennai- 600 004
...Applicant
-Vs-
Ponneri, Chennai- 601 101
Counsels on record / appeared:
ORDER IN MA No. 170/2026
applicant bank for condonation of delay of 177 days in re-presenting the OA.
Uploaded on 24.07.2026 at 16:00 hours
2
Perused the Affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicant bank
and the records of the case.
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.
Uploaded on 24.07.2026 at 16:00 hours
3
Services Authority on or before 14.08.2026 by the applicant and to file the compliance report before the Registry.
to comply with the conditional order above, MA stand dismissed
automatically without there being any need to pass separate order.
Sd/-
(S.V. GOWRAMMA) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI
(Dictated to Roshnee, typed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on
this the 24th day of July, 2026)
Uploaded on 24.07.2026 at 16:00 hours
1 issue framed by the court
Whether condonation of delay of 177 days in re-presenting the Original Application is justified considering the loss of the bundle due to office shifting.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
V.P. Rajula -Vs.- K.J. Sakadeva RajaRelied on¶31
V.P. Rajula -Vs.- K.J. Sakadeva Raja reported in LAWS (MAD)- 2020-8-441
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s Bank of Maharashtra
M/s Annai Foods
Mr. J. Jeevakesh Sundar
Mrs. Thirumalai Subramani
S.V. Gowramma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
S.V. Gowramma
Parties & counsel
