Allowed

Indian Bank v. Sri Murugan Agencies

DRT24 Jul 2026MA/171/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allows an application for condonation of delay in re-presenting a debt recovery application, citing the custodial role of banks over public funds and relying on a Madras High Court judgment. The relief is conditional upon payment of court fees and compliance.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay of 695 days allowed subject to payment of Rs.5,000 costs and filing of compliance report.

Indian Bank versus Sri Murugan Agencies — 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.171 of 2026 in OA Dy.No.1644/2022

¶6

M/s Indian Bank, Stressed Asset Management branch Represented by its Chief Manager, No.55, Ethiraj salai, Egmore, Chennai- 600 008

¶7

...Applicant -Vs-

¶8

M/s Murugan Agencies,

¶9

Represented by its Proprietrix,

¶10

Mrs.D.Pappa, No.4/10, New colony 2^nd street, West Saidapet, Chennai- 600 015

¶11

Also at: M/s Murugan Agencies, Represented by its Proprietrix, Mrs.D.Pappa, No.355/E, Karekala Cholan street, Grand line, Chennai- 600052

¶12

Also at: M/s Murugan Agencies, Represented by its Proprietrix, Mrs.D.Pappa, No.67/1, Kundrathur Main road, Porur, Madanandhapuram, Chennai- 600125

¶13

Mrs. D.Pappa, W/o Dharmalingam, No.3, Kamarajar street, West Saidapet, Chennai- 600 015

¶14

Also at: Mrs. D. Pappa, W/o Dharmalingam No.4/10, new colony 2^nd street, West Saidapet, Chennai- 600015

¶15

Uploaded on 24.07.2026 at 16:00 hours

¶16

¶17

Mr.S.D. Suresh Kumar, S/o Ponnambalam Dharmalingam, No.3, Kamarajar street, West Saidapet, Chennai- 600 015

¶18

Also at: Mr. S.D. Suresh Kumar, S/o Ponnambalam Dharmalingam, B-5, Ambal Nagar extension, Kovur, Chennai- 600 112 …Defendants

¶19

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶20

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. P.V. Murlidhar

¶21

ORDER IN MA No. 171/2026

¶22

MA No.171 of 2026 is taken up. This is an application filed by applicant bank for condonation of delay of 695 days in re-presenting the OA.

¶23

Perused the Affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicant bank.

¶24

It is submitted by applicant bank that the present OA was filed for recovery of sum of Rs.2,90,91,186/- together with interest and costs. It is submitted that the OA was returned by the Registry for compliance of objections. As the concerned Manager got transferred, it took time to obtain the details from the present incumbent to re-present the OA. 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 695 days in representing the OA.

¶25

Uploaded on 24.07.2026 at 16:00 hours

¶26

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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.

¶30

Accordingly, MA No.171/26 stands allowed and delay is condoned, subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- 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.

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

¶32

Sd/-

¶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

Indian Bank v. Sri Murugan Agencies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Bank v. Sri Murugan Agencies

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