Allowed

Canara Bank v. Sivagnanam

DRT20 Jan 2026MA/383/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application filed by Canara Bank seeking condonation of 128-day delay in filing the hard copy of an Original Application. Court relied on Supreme Court precedent and allowed the application conditionally, subject to payment of costs and filing of a compliance report within the specified deadline.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay of 128 days in filing physical copy of OA allowed subject to payment of Rs. 1,000/- cost and filing compliance report.

Canara Bank versus Sivagnanam — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶3

Dated this the 20^th day of January 2026

¶4

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶5

M.A. No. 383 of 2025 in OA Dy. No.1320/2024

¶6

Canara Bank, Rep by its Chief Manager Ashok Nagar II Branch, New No.17 (Old No.21a), 11^th Avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai-600 083 ....Applicant -Vs-

¶7

Sri. J. Sivagnanam

¶8

S/o. Sri. Jayaraman, No.18, Mettu Street, Thathmanji, Kattur Village, Meenjur Via, Ponneri TK, Tiruvallur dt-601 203

¶9

Smt. Sakila Sivagnanam, W/o. Sri. J. Sivagnanm, No.18, Mettu Street, Thathmanji, Kattur Village, Meenjur Via, Ponneri TK, Tiruvallur dt-601 203

¶10

Smt. Vaijayanthi Mala, W/o. Late J. Ekambaram, No.17, Mettu Street, Thathmanji, Kattur Village, Meenjur Via, Ponneri TK, Tiruvallur dt-601 203

¶11

Smt. E. Dharani, D/o. Late. J. Ekambaram, No.17, Mettu Street, Thathmanji, Kattur Village, Meenjur Via, Ponneri TK, Tiruvallur dt-601 203

¶12

Smt. E. Sangeetha, D/o. Late J. Ekambaram, No.17, Mettu Street, Thathmanji, Kattur Village, Meenjur Via, Ponneri TK, Tiruvallur dt-601 203 ….Defendants

¶13

¶14

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶15

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. Kavitha Singuluri

¶16

ORDER IN MA No. 383/2025 in OA Dy. No.1320/2024

¶17

MA No. 383 of 2025 is taken up. This is an application filed by applicant bank for condonation of delay of 128 days in filing physical copy of the OA.

¶18

Perused the Affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicant bank.

¶19

It is submitted by applicant bank that the present OA was filed for recovery of sum of Rs.2,18,47,629.62/- together with interest and costs. It is submitted by the applicant bank that the Original Application was e- filed on 27.05.2024 vide Dy.No.1320/2024. It is submitted that filing of hard copy of the OA was entrusted to the counsel’s junior. At that instance, the counsel had shifted the office, due to which the case bundle is mixed with office bundle and could not present the hard copy of OA on time. Hence, the physical copy of the OA could not be filed within the prescribed 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 128 days in filing physical copy of the OA.

¶20

Perused the Affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicant bank and the records of the case.

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.748 of 2023 reported in MANU/SC/0590/2023 decided on 01.05.2023 feels it apt to condone the delay and give opportunity to applicant to prosecute their case.

¶24

Accordingly, MA No.383/25 stands allowed and delay is condoned, subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority on or before 24.02.2026 by the applicant and to file the compliance report before the Registry.

¶25

In case of the applicant complying with the order and filing compliance memo, Registry is directed to further scrutinize and 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.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

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

¶28

(Dictated to Steno (Arti), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 20^th day of January, 2026)

Canara Bank v. Sivagnanam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank v. Sivagnanam

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

K Srimathy versus Uco Bank

Bank of Baroda versus Ramaswamy

Karur Vysya Bank versus N Devi

Mr B Sankaralingam versus City Union Bank Limited

Expovan versus Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.

Bank of Baroda versus Kannan