Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sathish

DRT20 Mar 2026MA/44/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application to condone a delay of 810 days and restore an original application dismissed for default due to non-filing of proof affidavit, the Tribunal relied on precedent to condone the delay. The bank undertook to pay costs and file compliance within two months.

What did the court decide?

MAs 44/26 and 45/26 allowed; restoration of the Original Appeal granted, subject to payment of Rs.3,000 costs and compliance within 16.04.2026.

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

¶1

MAs 44/26 & 45/26 In TA No.1111/2023

¶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. 44/26 & 45/26 in TA No.1111 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

M. Sathish S/o Manoharan, No.3, Veeravanchi Nathan Nagar, Temple Street, Perungudi, Chennai – 600 096. .…Respondent / Defendant

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : Sh. S. Vaidyanathan

¶13

: -ORDER ON MA Nos.44/26 & 45/26-:

¶14

MA 44/26 is filed by applicant bank praying to condone delay of 810

¶15

days in filing restoration petition and MA 45/26 is filed to restore TA, which was dismissed for default on 22.09.2023.

¶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.31,46,932/- (Rupees Thirty One Lakhs Forty Six Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty Two) together with future interest and costs.

¶17

MAs 44/26 & 45/26 In TA No.1111/2023

¶18

¶19

20.03.2026

¶20

The Applicant Bank has filed the present petitions i.e., MA No. 44/26 & 45/26 along with affidavit of Sh. M. Ramesh, City Case Officer of applicant bank submitting that the defendants availed Housing Loan of Rs.30,70,000/- and Loan for SBI Life Premium Rs.1,02,550/- 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 22.03.2018 and the applicant bank has filed the OA 600/2019 before DRTII for recovery of outstanding amount due from the defendants. The OA was transferred to this Tribunal due to bifurcation of jurisdiction and renumbered as TA No.1111/2023.

¶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 22.09.2023. The mortgaged property was sold in E-auction under SARFAESI Act for an amount of Rs.24.25 lakhs on 21.12.2020 and the documents of title have since been handed over to the auction purchaser.

¶22

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.

¶23

MAs 44/26 & 45/26 In TA No.1111/2023

¶24

¶25

20.03.2026

¶26

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 810 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 810 days in filing petition to restore the OA.

¶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.31,46,932/- along with interest and for sale of mortgaged properties. After completion of service of summons, the defendants were placed ex-parte on 27.07.2021, subsequent to which, applicant bank had availed substantial number of adjournments upto September, 2023 for processing PA and OD. As applicant bank did not take steps to file the proof affidavit and documents, OA came to be dismissed for default and non-prosecution on 22.09.2023. During the pendency of the OA, the applicant bank had also sold the secured asset under SARFAESI Act and recovered a sum of Rs.24.25 lakhs.

¶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

¶30

on the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madras (At Madurai) in the

¶31

MAs 44/26 & 45/26

¶32

20.03.2026

¶33

¶34

In TA No.1111/2023

¶35

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

¶36

(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.

¶37

Accordingly, MAs 44/26 and 45/26 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.

¶38

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.

¶39

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

¶40

(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. Sathish

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sathish

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