Allowed

Central Bank of India v. Ms R Tech Industries

DRT13 Apr 2026MA/50/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed miscellaneous applications filed by an applicant bank to condone a 2531-day delay in restoring a default-dismissed original application. The court relied on High Court precedent to restore the case without further adjournments, imposing costs.

What did the court decide?

MAs allowed; Applicant to pay Rs.50,000 costs to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority by 06.05.2026 and file compliance report.

Central Bank of India versus Ms R Tech Industries — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶3

Dated this the 13^th day of April, 2026

¶4

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶5

Misc. Application Nos. 50 & 51/25 in OA No.156 of 2017

¶6

Central Bank of India Represented by its Branch Manager Nandambakkam Branch No.5/12, Mount Poonamallee Road Chennai – 600 089 …. Petitioner / Applicant

¶7

-Vs-

¶8

M/s R. Tech Industries Rep. by its Proprietor Mr. K. Rajendra Babu No.3/88, Mount Poonamallee Road Telace Industrial Estate Ramapuram, Chennai – 600 089 .…Respondent / Defendant

¶9

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶10

Counsel for Applicant : M/s Anil Relwani

¶11

: -ORDER ON MA Nos.50/25 & 51/25-:

¶12

MAs 50/25 and 51/25 are filed by applicant bank praying to condone delay of 2531 days in filing restoration petition and to restore TA, which was dismissed for default on 17.08.2018.

¶13

The Original Application is filed by the Petitioner/Applicant Bank against the Defendants, seeking main relief to order the Defendant pay a sum of Rs.15,14,327/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Fourteen Thousand

¶14

¶15

Three Hundred and Twenty Seven only) together with future interest and costs.

¶16

The Applicant Bank has filed the present petitions i.e., MA No.50/25 & 51/25 along with affidavit of Sh. Sandeep Thakkar, Chief Manager of applicant bank submitting that the defendants availed loan facilities 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 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 and the applicant bank has filed the OA before this Tribunal for recovery of outstanding amount due from the defendant.

¶17

It is further submitted that the OA was dismissed for default on 17.08.2018 due to non-prosecution. The dismissal of the case to the knowledge of the bank only recently when it contacted the previous counsel, Ms. D. Kamatchi to ascertain the status of the OA and to initiate another OA against the Proprietor of the firm in a Housing Loan, which account has also been classified as NPA. Upon coming to know about the dismissal, the bank had obtained the change of vakalat from the previous counsel and engaged the present counsel to address the matter, including filing of necessary petition to restore the OA.

¶18

It is further submitted that the default had occurred due to lack of communication from the previous counsel, unintentional lapse in tracking

¶19

¶20

the proceedings owing to administrative oversight within the bank and the bank’s reliance on the counsel to monitor and prosecute the matter diligently. Due to the aforesaid reasons, the set aside petition could not be filed within the time, which is neither willful nor wanton. Hence the present application is filed to condone the delay of 2531 days in filing petition to restore the OA.

¶21

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

¶22

The applicant, being a financial institution has filed the OA for recovery of a sum of Rs.15,14,327/- along with interest and for sale of mortgaged properties. After completion of service of summons, the defendant was placed ex-parte on 15.09.2017, subsequent to which, applicant bank had availed substantial number of adjournments upto August, 2018 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 17.08.2018.

¶23

Although, the delay is on the very high side, 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

¶24

High Court of Madras (At Madurai) in the judgment of V.P. Rajula -

¶25

Vs.- K.J. Sakadeva Raja reported in LAWS (MAD)-2020-8-441 feels

¶26

it apt to condone the delay and restore the OA and give last opportunity to applicant to prosecute the case, without seeing any further adjournments.

¶27

¶28

Accordingly, MAs 50/25 and 51/25 stands allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.50,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority on or before 06.05.2026 by the applicant and to file the compliance report before the Registry. Applicant bank is further cautioned not to seek unnecessary adjournments in prosecuting the case.

¶29

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.

¶30

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

¶31

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 13^th day of April, 2026)

Central Bank of India v. Ms R Tech Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Central Bank of India v. Ms R Tech Industries

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

shri C Durai Son of Chidambaram versus Punjab National Bank

Union Bank of India versus Bilaverndiran

Bank of Baroda versus Srikara Bojana

State Bank of India versus Jeeva R

Canara Bank versus Ilangovelan and One Another

Canara Bank versus Prabahakaran