Allowed

State Bank of India v. Magesh S

DRT20 Mar 2026MA/43/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order condones a delay of 637 days in filing an application to restore a banking repayment suit dismissed for default. The Tribunal relied on a Madras High Court judgment to allow restoration pending payment of costs and compliance with filing requirements.

What did the court decide?

MAs 42/26 and 43/26 allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.2,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority and filing a compliance report.

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

¶1

MAs 42/26 & 43/26 In TA No.828/2023

¶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. 42/26 & 43/26 in TA No.828 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. …. Petitioner / Applicant

¶9

-Vs-

¶10

Mr. S. Magesh S/o Selvaraj, No.19G, Rangoon Street, SM Nagar, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018. .…Respondent / Defendant

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : Sh. S. Vaidyanathan

¶13

: -ORDER ON MA Nos.42/26 & 43/26-:

¶14

MA 42/26 is filed by applicant bank praying to condone delay of 637

¶15

days in filing restoration petition and MA 43/26 is filed to restore TA, which was dismissed for default on 12.03.2024.

¶16

The Original Application is filed by the Petitioner/Applicant Bank against the Defendants, seeking main relief to order the Defendants pay a sum of Rs.38,44,375/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Lakhs Forty Four Thousand Three Hundred and Seventy Five only) together with future interest and costs.

¶17

MAs 42/26 & 43/26 In TA No.828/2023

¶18

¶19

20.03.2026

¶20

The Applicant Bank has filed the present petitions i.e., MA No. 42/26 & 43/26 along with affidavit of Sh. Kalish Chandra Meena, Chief Manager of applicant bank submitting that the defendants availed Housing Loan of Rs.38,82,520/- and had executed the loan documents. The immovable property belonging to the defendants, which was purchased out of the loan sanctioned by applicant bank was offered as security by the defendants. 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 969/2018 before DRT-II 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.828/2023.

¶21

It is further submitted that as the applicant bank did not take steps to file Proof Affidavit and documents, the TA came to be dismissed for default and non-prosecution on 12.03.2024. The mortgaged property was sold in E-auction under SARFAESI Act for an amount of Rs.29 lakhs on 14.09.2021 and the documents of title have since been handed over to the auction purchaser.

¶22

It is submitted that after the sale of schedule property due to COVID -19 Pandemic, the case bundle was misplaced and the advocate on record was appointed as Government Pleader and failed to follow up the case and officers of the applicant bank have been transferred from the services of

¶23

MAs 42/26 & 43/26 In TA No.828/2023

¶24

¶25

20.03.2026

¶26

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 637 days occurred. Hence the present application is filed to condone the delay of 637 days in filing petition to restore the OA. The delay caused is neither willful nor wanton but only due to aforesaid reasons.

¶27

Heard Ld. Counsel appearing for applicant and perused the records of the case.

¶28

The applicant, being a financial institution has filed the OA for recovery of a sum of Rs.38,44,375/- along with interest and for sale of mortgaged properties. After completion of service of summons, the defendants were placed ex-parte on 15.11.2019, subsequent to which, applicant bank had availed substantial number of adjournments upto March, 2024 for processing PA and OD. As applicant bank did not comply with the returns of the proof affidavit and documents, OA came to be dismissed for default and non-prosecution on 12.03.2024. The mortgaged property was sold in E-auction under SARFAESI Act for an amount of Rs.29 lakhs on 14.09.2021 and the documents of title have since been handed over to the auction purchaser.

¶29

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

¶30

judgment of V.P. Rajula -Vs.- K.J. Sakadeva Raja reported in LAWS

¶31

MAs 42/26 & 43/26 In TA No.828/2023

¶32

20.03.2026

¶33

¶34

(MAD)-2020-8-441 feels it apt to condone the delay and restore the OA

¶35

and give last opportunity to applicant to prosecute the case.

¶36

Accordingly, MAs 42/26 and 43/26 stands allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.2,000/- 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. Magesh S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Magesh S

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