Allowed

Bank of India v. M s Priyadarshini Bricks Prop D Jayanthi

DRT13 Mar 2026MA/26/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a motion to condone a significant delay in filing a restoration petition for an Original Application. Being a financial institution, the applicant bank was granted a last opportunity to prosecute the case filed under O.A. No.105 of 2019.

What did the court decide?

Motion to condone delay of 1092 days allowed; Original Application restored to file upon payment of costs and filing compliance report.

Bank of India versus M s Priyadarshini Bricks Prop D Jayanthi — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶3

Dated this the 13^th day of March, 2026

¶4

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶5

M.A. Nos.26 & 27 of 2026

¶6

¶7

O.A. No.105 of 2019

¶8

Bank of India Kancheepuram Branch Post Bag 20, Gandhi Road Kancheepuram District Kancheepuram – 631 501 Rep. by its Constituted Attorney

¶9

….Petitioner / Applicant

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

M/s. Priyadarshini Bricks

¶12

Rep. by its Proprietor D. Jayanthi

¶13

6-Pichavadi Village, Muthavedu Panchayat

¶14

Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District

¶15

D. Jayanthi W/o Mr. S. Durairaj New No.17, Old No.98/21,

¶16

Pudhupalayam Street, Pallayaralayam

¶17

Kancheepuram – 631 501 ….Respondents/Defendants

¶18

: - ORDER ON MA NO.26 & 27 of 2026 in OA No.105/2019 - :

¶19

The Original Application is filed by the applicant bank against the Defendants, seeking main relief to order the Respondent, to pay jointly and

¶20

severally a sum of Rs.32,48,561.48p (Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs Forty

¶21

Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Sixty One and Forty Eight Paise

¶22

only) with further interest and costs.

¶23

The Petitioner has filed the present petitions i.e., MA No.26/26 & 27/26 along with affidavit of counsel on record for the applicant bank Sh.

¶24

¶25

C. Harsha Raj, seeking to condone delay od 1092 days in filing restoration petition and to restore the OA which was dismissed for default on 13.10.2022.

¶26

It is submitted that the above case was posted on 13.10.2022 for rectification of Proof Affidavit returns. Due to administrative reasons and circumstances beyond control of the applicant, the same could not be complied within the time granted by this Tribunal. Hence the OA came to be dismissed for default on 13.10.2022.

¶27

It is further submitted that the dismissal of the OA has happened owing to non-compliance of the direction to rectify the proof affidavit. The Authorised Signatory who was duly authorized to swear the proof affidavit had been transferred from the concerned branch to another. Further, as the OA pertains to the year 2019, the officers who are initially handling the case were also transferred to other branches, which resulted in delay in retrieving the case records and obtaining necessary instructions. The delay occurred due to administrative exigencies and unavoidable circumstances, which is neither willful nor wanton. Now, that the petitioner bank had duly complied with the proof affidavit returns and the same is found to be in order. Thus submitting, counsel prayed for condonation of delay of 1092 days in filing restoration petition and for restoration of the OA which was dismissed on 13.10.2022.

¶28

¶29

Heard the counsel for petitioner and perused the records of

¶30

the case .

¶31

The applicant, being a financial institution has filed the OA for recovery of a sum of Rs.32,48,561.48p along with interest and for sale of mortgaged properties. Despite availing substantial number of adjournments, as applicant bank did not rectify the proof affidavit and documents, the OA came to be dismissed for default and non-prosecution on 13.10.2022. Now the applicant bank had rectified the returns in the Proof Affidavit and it is found to be in order by the Registry.

¶32

In view of the fact that the applicant 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

¶33

judgment of V.P. Rajula -Vs.- K.J. Sakadeva Raja reported in LAWS

¶34

(MAD)-2020-8-441 feels it apt to condone the delay and restore the OA and give last opportunity to applicant to prosecute the case.

¶35

Accordingly, MAs 26/26 stands allowed condoning the delay of 1092 days, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority on or before 06.04.2026 by the applicant and to file the compliance report before the Registry. On compliance of the conditional order, MA No.27/26 filed to set aside the order of dismissal dated 14.12.2022 shall stand allowed and OA shall be restored to file.

¶36

¶37

It is clarified that in case if the applicant bank fails to comply with the conditional order above, MAs stand dismissed automatically without there

¶38

being any need to pass separate order.

¶39

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

¶40

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 13^th day of March, 2026)

Bank of India v. M s Priyadarshini Bricks Prop D Jayanthi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. M s Priyadarshini Bricks Prop D Jayanthi

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

Rajesh Elanchezian versus Punjab National Bank

Jayamaran versus Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited

Sunil Singh versus Union Bank of India

Karur Vysya Bank versus Zulaikha Motors PvtLtd

P Sivaramakrishnan versus Union Bank of India

Jj Fuels versus Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.