Debts Recovery Tribunal issued a conditional order condoning a 699-day delay and restoring an Original Application filed by a bank for debt recovery, directing payment of costs and future compliance.
MAs 36/26 and 37/26 allowed; costs Rs.2,000 directed; case restored for further prosecution.
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.
MAs 36/26 & 37/26 In TA No.1021/2023
19.03.2026
1
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI
Dated this the 19th day of March, 2026
Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA
Presiding Officer
Misc. Application Nos. 36/26 & 37/26 in TA No.1021 of 2023
State Bank of India SARB II, Chennai, No.44, 1st Floor, Eldams Road, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018 Rep. by City Case Officer.
…Petitioner/ Applicant
-Vs-
Mr. S. Srinivasan S/o Santhanakrishnan No.3, Bhavani Amman Koil Street, Tirunageswaram, Kunrathur, Chennai – 600 069.
…Respondent / Defendant
Counsels on record / appeared:
Counsel for Applicant : Mr. S. Vaidyanathan
: -ORDER ON MA NOs.36/26 & 37/26-:
days in filing restoration petition and MA 37/26 is filed to restore TA, which was dismissed for default on 11.01.2024.
sum of Rs.30,13,142/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Thirteen Thousand One
Hundred and Forty Two only) together with future interest and costs.
MAs 36/26 & 37/26
2
19.03.2026
In TA No.1021/2023
MAs 36/26 & 37/26 In TA No.1021/2023
3
19.03.2026
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.
Heard Ld. Counsel appearing for applicant and perused the records of the case.
MAs 36/26 & 37/26 In TA No.1021/2023
19.03.2026
4
(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.
(S.V. GOWRAMMA) PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI
(Dictated to Steno (Mogesh), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 19th day of March, 2026)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether delay of 699 days in filing restoration petition by the financial institution applicant should be condoned.
Whether a last opportunity should be given to the applicant bank to prosecute the restorable Original Application.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
V.P. Rajula -Vs.- K.J. Sakadeva RajaApplied¶35
V.P. Rajula -Vs.- K.J. Sakadeva Raja reported in LAWS_(MAD)-2020-8-441
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State Bank of India
Mr. S. Srinivasan
S.V. GOWRAMMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
S.V. GOWRAMMA
Parties & counsel
