Allowed

State Bank of India v. Krishnan

DRT6 Feb 2026MA/8/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal condoned a delay of 688 days in re-presenting an Original Application filed by the State Bank of India for money recovery. The delay was attributed to accidental mix-up of papers during the applicant's counsel's office relocation. The application was allowed conditionally.

What did the court decide?

Condoned delay of 688 days for re-presenting the OA, subject to payment of Rs.3,000/- to the Legal Services Authority and filing a compliance report by 04.03.2026.

State Bank of India versus Krishnan — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶3

Dated this the 6^th day of February 2026

¶4

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶5

M.A. No.8 of 2026 in OA Dy. No.5163/2023

¶6

STATE BANK OF INDIA R.A.C.P.C, No:50, R.A. Plaza, Mount Poonamallee High Road, Ayyappanthangal, Chennai-600056. Rep. by its Chief Manager

¶7

...Applicant

¶8

-Vs-

¶9

V. Krishnan, S/o. Veerapathiran, No;4, Bharathiyar Street, Meenambakkam, Chennai-600027

¶10

V. Krishnan Also at, Ganabathy Enclave, Plot No:3, Flat No:F2, First Floor, Amudha Nagar, Ayyanchery, Chennai-603210.

¶11

V. Krishnan Also at, Bright Shine Services, No:2, First Floor, Sarathy Street, Pallavaram, Chennai-600043.

¶12

Mrs. Jackulin, W/o Krishnan, No;4, Bharathiyar Street, Meenambakkam, Chennai-600027.

¶13

¶14

Mrs. Jackulin also at, Plot No:3, Flat No:F2, First Floor, Ganapathy Enclave, Amudha Nagar, Ayyanchery, Chennai-603210.

¶15

Mrs. Jackulin also at, Bright Shine Services, No:2, First Floor, Sarathy Street, Pallavaram, Chennai-600043.

¶16

…Defendants

¶17

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶18

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. B. Jawahar

¶19

ORDER IN MA No. 8/2026

¶20

MA No. 8 of 2026 is taken up. This is an application filed by applicant

¶21

bank for condonation of delay of 688 days in re-presenting the OA.

¶22

Perused the Affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicant bank.

¶23

It is submitted by applicant bank that the present OA was filed for recovery of sum of Rs.87,18,922/- together with interest and costs. It is submitted that the above OA was returned by the Registry for compliance of returns. It is submitted that at the time of shifting of the counsel’s office from Pallavaram to Kodambakkam, the case papers got mixed up with old bundles. 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 688 days in representing the OA.

¶24

¶25

Perused the Affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicant bank and

¶26

the records of the case.

¶27

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 V.P.

¶28

Rajula -Vs.- K.J. Sakadeva Raja reported in LAWS (MAD)-2020-8-

¶29

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

¶30

Accordingly, MA No.8/26 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 04.03.2026 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 Steno (Mogesh), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 06^th day of February, 2026)

¶35

State Bank of India v. Krishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Krishnan

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 Kannivel

Punjab National Bank versus M/S Harini Mutti Speciality Dental Clinic

Axis Bank versus Jagan

State Bank of India versus Rajaguru

Indian Overseas Bank versus Srinivasan

Indian Overseas Bank versus M s Mmw