Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sivaranjani

DRT20 Mar 2026MA/40/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT-III, Chennai condoned an 873-day delay in filing a restoration petition by State Bank of India to revive an Original Application dismissed for default. The order allowed the application subject to payment of costs to the State Legal Services Authority.

What did the court decide?

Allowed MAs 40/26 and 41/26 to restore the OA subject to payment of Rs.3,000/- costs to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.

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

¶1

MAs 40/26 & 41/26 In TA No.1279/2023

¶2

20.03.2026

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 20^th day of March, 2026

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

Misc. Application Nos. 40/26 & 41/26 in TA No.1279 of 2023

¶8

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

¶9

…. Petitioner / Applicant

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

Ms. S. Sivaranjani W/o Ramprasad, No.7/12, Aravindar Street, Vijayalakshmipuram, Ambattur, Chennai – 600 053.

¶12

.…Respondent / Defendant

¶13

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶14

Counsel for Applicant : Sh. S. Vaidyanathan

¶15

: -ORDER ON MA Nos.40/26 & 41/26-:

¶16

MA 40/26 is filed by applicant bank praying to condone delay of 873

¶17

days in filing restoration petition and MA 41/26 is filed to restore TA, which was dismissed for default on 28.08.2023.

¶18

The Original Application is filed by the Petitioner/Applicant Bank against the Defendant, seeking main relief to order the Defendants pay a sum of Rs.25,79,272/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Seventy Nine

¶19

MAs 40/26 & 41/26 In TA No.1279/2023

¶20

¶21

20.03.2026

¶22

Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy Two) together with future interest and costs.

¶23

The Applicant Bank has filed the present petitions i.e., MA No. 40/26 & 41/26 along with affidavit of Sh. Kalish Chandra Meena, Chief Manager of applicant bank submitting that the defendants availed Housing Loan of Rs.28,60,000/- and SBI Life Premium for Rs.1,30,310/- and had executed the loan documents. The immovable property belonging to the defendant, 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 defendants were 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 596/2019 before DRT-II, Chennai for recovery of outstanding amount due from the defendants. Subsequently, the OA was transferred to this Tribunal due to bifurcation of jurisdiction and re-numbered as TA No.1279/2023.

¶24

It is further submitted that as the applicant bank did not take steps to file proof of service of fresh notice to defendant, the TA came to be dismissed for default and non-prosecution on 28.08.2023. During the pendency of OA, the mortgaged property was sold in E-auction under SARFAESI Act on 05.11.2019 for an amount of Rs.22 lakhs and the documents of title have since been handed over to the auction purchaser.

¶25

MAs 40/26 & 41/26 In TA No.1279/2023

¶26

¶27

20.03.2026

¶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 filed despite availing several adjournments, which resulted in unnoticing of the dismissal of the OA and hence delay of 873 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 873 days in filing petition to restore the OA.

¶29

Heard Ld. Counsel appearing for applicant and perused the

¶30

records of the case.

¶31

The applicant, being a financial institution has filed the OA for recovery of a sum of Rs.25,79,272/- along with interest and for sale of mortgaged properties. The applicant bank had availed substantial number of adjournments upto August, 2023 for filing AOS of fresh notice to defendant and proof of paper publication. As applicant bank did not file either AOS or proof of paper publication, OA came to be dismissed for default and non-prosecution on 28.08.2023. During the pendency of the OA, the applicant bank had also sold the secured asset under SARFAESI Act and recovered a sum of Rs.22 lakhs.

¶32

MAs 40/26 & 41/26 In TA No.1279/2023

¶33

20.03.2026

¶34

¶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 (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.

¶36

Accordingly, MAs 40/26 and 41/26 stands allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.3,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority on or before 16.04.2026 by the applicant and to file the compliance report before the Registry.

¶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 being any need to pass separate order.

¶38

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

¶39

(Dictated to Steno (Mogesh), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 20^th day of March, 2026)

State Bank of India v. Sivaranjani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sivaranjani

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

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S Subra System

Punjab National Bank versus Spire Works Rep By R Sekar

Rizwan versus Dcb Bank Limited

State Bank of India versus Prathapsingh

Idbi Bank versus Mohamed Mustafa

A J Satheshkumar versus Idbi Bank