Allowed

State Bank of India v. Srinivasan S

DRT19 Mar 2026MA/36/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal condoned a 699-day delay in filing a restoration petition for a default-dismissed recovery application. Relying on a High Court precedent, the court restored the Original Application to allow the bank to prosecute, subject to payment of costs to the Legal Services Authority.

What did the court decide?

Main Applications allowed; Original Application restored to allow prosecution subject to payment of Rs. 2,000 as costs to the Legal Services Authority.

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

¶1

MAs 36/26 & 37/26 In TA No.1021/2023

¶2

19.03.2026

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 19^th day of March, 2026

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA

¶7

Presiding Officer

¶8

Misc. Application Nos. 36/26 & 37/26 in TA No.1021 of 2023

¶9

State Bank of India SARB II, Chennai, No.44, 1^st Floor, Eldams Road, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018 Rep. by City Case Officer.

¶10

…Petitioner/ Applicant

¶11

-Vs-

¶12

Mr. S. Srinivasan S/o Santhanakrishnan No.3, Bhavani Amman Koil Street, Tirunageswaram, Kunrathur, Chennai – 600 069.

¶13

…Respondent / Defendant

¶14

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶15

Counsel for Applicant : Mr. S. Vaidyanathan

¶16

: -ORDER ON MA NOs.36/26 & 37/26-:

¶17

MA 36/26 is filed by applicant bank praying to condone delay of 699

¶18

days in filing restoration petition and MA 37/26 is filed to restore TA, which was dismissed for default on 11.01.2024.

¶19

The Original Application is filed by the Petitioner/Applicant Bank against the Defendants, seeking main relief to order the Defendant pay a

¶20

sum of Rs.30,13,142/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Thirteen Thousand One

¶21

Hundred and Forty Two only) together with future interest and costs.

¶22

MAs 36/26 & 37/26

¶23

¶24

19.03.2026

¶25

In TA No.1021/2023

¶26

The Applicant Bank has filed the present petitions i.e., MA No. 36/26 & 37/26 along with affidavit of Sh. Kailash Chandra Meena, Chief Manager of applicant bank submitting that the defendants availed Housing Loan of Rs.29,92,985/-, and had executed the loan documents. The immovable property belonging to the defendants, which was purchased out of the loan sanctioned by applicant bank was offered as security by the defendant. However, subsequent to availing of loan, the defendant was not regular in repayment and committed default. Consequently, the loan account as classified as NPA on 28.11.2016 and the applicant bank has filed the OA 959/2018 before DRT-II, Chennai for recovery of outstanding amount due from the defendant. Subsequently, the OA was transferred to this Tribunal due to bifurcation of jurisdiction and re-numbered as TA No.1021/2023.

¶27

It is submitted that as the applicant bank did not take steps to prosecute the case, the TA came to be dismissed for default and nonprosecution on 11.01.2024. The mortgaged property was sold in E-auction under SARFAESI Act for an amount of Rs.17 lakhs and the documents of title have since been handed over to the auction purchaser.

¶28

It is further submitted that after the sale of schedule property due to COVID -19 Pandemic, the case bundle was misplaced and the Advocate on record for applicant bank was appointed as Government Pleader. Some of his juniors who were pursuing the case, and failed to follow up the case. Further, the officers of the applicant bank have been transferred from the services of the bank and hence Proof affidavit and documents could not be

¶29

MAs 36/26 & 37/26 In TA No.1021/2023

¶30

¶31

19.03.2026

¶32

filed despite availing several adjournments, which resulted in unnoticing of the dismissal of the OA and hence delay of 699 days occurred, which is neither willful nor wanton but only due to aforesaid reasons. The case bundle has now been retrieved and entrusted to the present counsel for further prosecution. Hence the present application is filed to condone the delay of 699 days in filing petition to restore the OA.

¶33

Heard Ld. Counsel appearing for applicant and perused the records of the case.

¶34

The applicant, being a financial institution has filed the OA for recovery of a sum of Rs.30,13,142/- along with interest and for sale of mortgaged properties. After completion of service of summons, the defendant was placed ex-parte on 15.11.2019, subsequent to which, applicant bank had availed substantial number of adjournments upto for proceeding further in the case. As applicant bank did not take any steps as directed, OA came to be dismissed for default and non-prosecution on 11.01.2024. During the pendency of the OA, the applicant bank had also sold the secured asset under SARFAESI Act and recovered a sum of Rs.17 lakhs.

¶35

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

¶36

MAs 36/26 & 37/26 In TA No.1021/2023

¶37

19.03.2026

¶38

¶39

(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.

¶40

Accordingly, MAs 36/26 and 37/26 stands allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.2,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority on or before 15.04.2026 by the applicant and to file the compliance report before the Registry.

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

(Dictated to Steno (Mogesh), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 19^th day of March, 2026)

State Bank of India v. Srinivasan S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Srinivasan S

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

Punjab National Bank versus Bhavna Wajekar

International Asset Reconstruction Compant Pvt. Ltd. versus Ms. Trimurti Construction Developers and Builders

Punjab National Bank versus Mrs. Kuljeet Singh

Smt Ritu Raj versus Punjab National Bank

Icici Bank Limited versus Mr Mohammad Razzaq Alam

Mundhra Comfoware versus West Bengal Gramin Bank