The DRT condoned a delay of 897 days in restoring an Origin Application dismissed for default by a banking applicant. The applicant was granted a conditional order to prosecute the case and pay specific costs.
Application allowed; applicant directed to pay Rs.3,000/- to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority and file 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.
MAs 38/26 & 39/26 In TA No.59/2023
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. 38/26 & 39/26 in TA No.59 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. P. Mariraj S/o Sri. Paulraj, No.19/2, Vivekanandar 1st Street, VNR Complex, Gummidipoondi, Chennai – 601 201.
…Respondent / Defendant
Counsels on record / appeared:
Counsel for Applicant : Mr. S. Vaidyanathan
: -ORDER ON MA NOs.38/26 & 39/26-:
Two Hundred and Sixty Only) together with future interest and costs.
MAs 38/26 & 39/26 In TA No.59/2023
2
19.03.2026
MAs 38/26 & 39/26 In TA No.59/2023
3
19.03.2026
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 filed despite availing several adjournments, which resulted in unnoticing of the dismissal of the OA and hence delay of 897 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 897 days in filing petition to restore the OA.
Heard Ld. Counsel appearing for applicant and perused the
records of the case.
on the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madras (At Madurai) in the
MAs 38/26 & 39/26
19.03.2026
4
In TA No.59/2023
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 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)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the delay of 897 days in filing a restoration petition by a bank, due to internal administrative lapses and pandemic-related issues, is condonable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
V.P. Rajula -Vs.- K.J. Sakadeva Raja reported in LAWS_(MAD)-2020-8-441Relied on¶37
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State Bank of India SARB II, Chennai
Mr. P. Mariraj
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
