Allowed

Bank of India v. Haris Ryan

DRT23 Jan 2026MA/417/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal condoned a 124-day delay in re-presenting an Original Application filed by the Bank of India to recover money, attributing the delay to office shifting. The court allowed the application on condition of payment of costs and filing a compliance report, ordering automatic dismissal if conditions were not met.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of 124 days delay allowed subject to payment of Rs.2,000/- costs to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority and filing compliance report.

Bank of India versus Haris Ryan — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶3

Dated this the 23^rd day of January 2026

¶4

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶5

M.A. No.417 of 2025 in OA Dy. No.568/2024

¶6

Bank of India Rep. by its Constituted Attorney, Having Branch office at: 174, LUZ Church Road, Mylapore, P.B.No.643 – Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 004.

¶7

...Applicant

¶8

-Vs-

¶9

Mr. Haris Rayin Marakkar S/o Syed Muhammed Flat No.1607, Block 2, Hibiscus Alliance, Orchid Spring Korattur,

¶10

Chennai – 600 076.

¶11

Mrs. Khairunneesa W/o Mr. Haris Rayin Marakkar, Flat No.1607, Block 2, Hibiscus Alliance, Orchid Spring Korattur, Chennai – 600 076.

¶12

Ms. Ziporal. S D/o Mr. Sacriyas, Plot No.127, Door No.3/337,

¶13

Santosh Nagar, Annex,

¶14

Madhanapuram,

¶15

Mugalivakkam,

¶16

Chennai – 600 125

¶17

…Defendants

¶18

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶19

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. B. Deepak Narayanan

¶20

¶21

ORDER IN MA No. 417/2025

¶22

MA No. 417 of 2025 is taken up. This is an application filed by applicant bank for condonation of delay of 124 days in re-presenting the OA.

¶23

Perused the Affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicant bank.

¶24

It is submitted by applicant bank that the present OA was filed for recovery of sum of Rs.2,61,76,035.08p together with interest and costs. It is submitted that the OA was returned by the Registry on 03.05.2025 for compliance by two weeks. Due to shifting of office, the OA could not be processed and could not be re-presented within the 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 124 days in representing the OA.

¶25

Perused the Affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicant bank and

¶26

the records of the case.

¶27

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 Hon’ble High Court of Madras (At Madurai) in the judgment of V.P.

¶28

Rajula -Vs.- K.J. Sakadeva Raja reported in LAWS (MAD)-2020-8-

¶29

441 feels it apt to condone the delay and give opportunity to applicant to prosecute their case.

¶30

¶31

Accordingly, MA No.417/25 stands allowed and delay is condoned, subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority on or before 20.02.2026 by the applicant and to file the compliance report before the Registry.

¶32

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

¶33

without there being any need to pass separate order.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

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

¶36

(Dictated to Steno (Mogesh), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 23^rd day of January, 2026)

Bank of India v. Haris Ryan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Haris Ryan

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

Bank of Baroda versus Gowri

Bank of India versus Rajeswara Rao

Mrs S Pankajam versus Central Bank of India

Bank of Baroda versus Kandhan

Shri K Senapathy versus Punjab National Bank

Canara Bank versus Suresh Kumar