Allowed

State Bank of India v. Narasima Traders

DRT14 Aug 2026MA/210/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal condoned a delay of 161 days in re-presenting an Original Application by the applicant bank, citing health issues of counsel. The application was allowed subject to payment of court fees and compliance with filing the original application.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of 161 days delay allowed subject to payment of Rs. 4,000/- to TN State Legal Services Authority and compliance of the OA.

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

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶3

Dated this the 14^th day of August 2026

¶4

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶5

M.A. No.210 of 2026 in OA Dy.No.4560 of 2025

¶6

M/s State Bank of India, Rep by its Chief Manager, Mr.M.Mohan, SME Ekkaduthangal, No.5, Jawaharlal Nehru road, Chennai- 600037 ...Applicant -VsM/s Narasima traders, Rep by its Proprietor, Mr.Jayachandra Thangaraj, S/o Thangaraj, No.371/5A, N.N. 168/C, 6^th street, LIC Nagar, Kolathur, Chennai Tamilnadu- 600 117 Also at: D.No.3B, 3/372, 1^st cross street, Rose Nagar, Kovilambakkam, Chennai- 600129 Office at: Plot No.535 and 536, English Electric Nagar, Zamin Pallavaram, Pallavaram (TK) Chennai- 600117 …Defendants

¶7

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶8

Counsel for Applicant : Mrs. V. Arulmozhi

¶9

Uploaded on 14.08.2026 at 15.29 hours

¶10

¶11

ORDER IN MA No.210/2026

¶12

MA No.210 of 2026 is taken up. This is an application filed by applicant bank for condonation of delay of 161 days in re-presenting the OA.

¶13

Perused the Affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicant bank.

¶14

It is submitted by applicant bank that the present OA was filed for recovery of sum of Rs.3,50,44,586/- (Rupees Three Crores Fifty Lakhs Forty Four Thousand Five hundred and Eighty Six only) together with interest and costs. It is submitted that the OA was returned by the Registry for compliance of objections. As the counsel on record for applicant was suffering from health issues. 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 161 days in representing the OA.

¶15

Perused the Affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicant bank and the

¶16

records of the case

¶17

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

¶18

V.P. Rajula -Vs.- K.J. Sakadeva Raja reported in LAWS (MAD)-

¶19

2020-8-441 feels it apt to condone the delay and give opportunity to

¶20

applicant to prosecute their case.

¶21

Uploaded on 14.08.2026 at 15.29 hours

¶22

¶23

Accordingly, MA No.210/26 stands allowed and delay is condoned, subject to payment of cost of Rs.4,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority on or before 11.09.2026 by the applicant and to file the compliance report before the Registry.

¶24

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.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

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

¶27

(Dictated to Roshnee, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 14^th day of August, 2026)

¶28

Uploaded on 14.08.2026 at 15.29 hours

State Bank of India v. Narasima Traders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Narasima Traders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Bank of India versus Swetadas

Union Bank of India versus Nachiappan Senthil

Canara Bank versus Raja

Canara Bank versus M s Parijatham Agencies

Karnataka Bank Limited versus Vimala Associates

Punjab National Bank versus Priya