Allowed

State Bank of India v. Loganathan

DRT23 Jan 2026MA/419/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an application for condonation of a 630-day delay in re-presenting an Original Application by the State Bank of India. The delay was attributed to documents being misplaced in the counsel's office.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed, delay of 630 days condoned subject to payment of Rs.2,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority and filing a compliance report.

State Bank of India versus Loganathan — 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.419 of 2025 in OA Dy. No.465/2023

¶6

State Bank of India R.A.C.P.C., No.50, R.A. Plaza, Mount Poonamallee High Road, Ayyappanthangal, Chennai – 600 056, Rep. by its Chief Manager ...Applicant

¶7

-Vs-

¶8

Loganathan, S/o Jayabalan, No.9, Vinayagar Koil Street, Irungattukottai, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Chennai – 602 117.

¶9

Also at: Best Tech Engineering, No.9A, Vinayagar Koil Street, Near Hundai Car Factory, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Chennai – 602 117.

¶10

Also at: Flat G1, Ground Floor, AGR Classic, Plot No.110, 3^rd Street, Shri Vijaya Nagar, Ayyanambakkam Village, Ambattur Taluk, Chennai – 600 095.

¶11

Also at: Flat F1, First Floor, AGR Classic, Plot No.110, 3^rd Street, Shri Vijaya Nagar, Ayyanambakkam Village, Ambattur Taluk, Chennai – 600 095. …Defendant

¶12

¶13

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶14

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. B. Jawahar

¶15

ORDER IN MA No. 419/2025

¶16

MA No. 419 of 2025 is taken up. This is an application filed by applicant bank for condonation of delay of 630 days in re-presenting the OA.

¶17

Perused the Affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicant bank.

¶18

It is submitted by applicant bank that the present OA was filed for recovery of sum of Rs.45,63,629/- together with interest and costs. It is submitted that OA was returned by the Registry for rectification of defects. As the documents were misplaced in counsel’s office, which was traced out

¶19

at a later point of time, the OA 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 630 days in representing the OA.

¶20

Perused the Affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicant bank and

¶21

the records of the case.

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

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

¶25

Accordingly, MA No.419/25 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.

¶26

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 without there being any need to pass separate order.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

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

¶29

(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)

State Bank of India v. Loganathan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Loganathan

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