The court allowed the applicant bank's application for condonation of a 173-day delay in re-presenting an Original Application (OA) for recovery, relying on a High Court decision, and directed payment of costs before the OA could be proceeded with.
Condonation of 173 days delay allowed subject to payment of ₹3,000 cost and filing of compliance report.
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 14th day of August 2026
Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer
M.A. No.211 of 2026 in OA Dy.No.2026 of 2025
The Karnataka Bank,
No.2/11 & 2/12, Conron Smith road, Gopalapuram, Chennai- 600086
Rep by its Branch Manager
...Applicant
-Vs-
Counsels on record / appeared:
Counsel for Applicant : M/s. R.Thirumalai
ORDER IN MA No.211/2026
Uploaded on 14.08.2026 at 15.33 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 14.08.2026 at 15.33 hours
3
Sd/-
(S.V. GOWRAMMA) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI
(Dictated to Roshnee, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 14th day of August, 2026)
Uploaded on 14.08.2026 at 15.33 hours
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay of 173 days in re-presenting an Original Application (OA) to the Tribunal can be condoned.
Whether the applicant bank was at fault for the delay that resulted from the return of the OA and failure to trace assets.
Whether the application for condonation of delay should be allowed subject to payment of costs and compliance.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
V.P. Rajula -Vs.- K.J. Sakadeva RajaRelied on¶33
V.P. Rajula -Vs.- K.J. Sakadeva Raja reported in LAWS (MAD)-2020-8-441
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Karnataka Bank
M/s Vimala Associates
Mr. A. Anand
Mrs. Sangeetha
S.V. Gowramma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
