Allowed

City Union Bank Limited v. Jothi Impex and others

DRT20 Mar 2026MA/52/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal condoned delay of 429 days by M/s. City Union Bank in re-presenting an Original Application for recovery, applying a Madras High Court judgment and imposing cost conditions.

What did the court decide?

Delay in re-presenting the Original Application allowed subject to payment of Rs.2,000 to TN State Legal Services Authority and filing compliance report.

City Union Bank Limited versus Jothi Impex and others — Consumer Protection | DRT (2026)

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶3

Dated this the 20^th day of March 2026

¶4

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶5

M.A. No.52 of 2026 in OA Dy. No.1420/2022

¶6

M/s. City Union Bank Ltd, George Town Branch Represented by its Branch Manager, No.154, New No.319, Thambu Chetty Street, George Town, Chennai-600 001.

¶7

...Applicant

¶8

-Vs-

¶9

M/s. Jothi Impex, Represented by its Proprietor Mr. M.Kumar, No.60, Varada Muthiappan Street, Mannady West, Chennai - 600001.

¶10

Mr. M.Kumar, S/o. Mr.M.Veeraswamy, Proprietor of M/s. Jothi Impeх, Old No.40, New No.74, Paramananda Street, Seven Well, Chennai - 600001.

¶11

Mr. M.K.Jyothi, W/o. Mr.Kumar, Old No.40, New No.74, Paramananda Street, Seven Well, Chennai - 600001. …Defendants

¶12

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶13

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. Ananda Gomathy

¶14

ORDER IN MA No. 52/2026

¶15

MA No. 52 of 2026 is taken up. This is an application filed by applicant

¶16

bank for condonation of delay of 429 days in re-presenting the OA.

¶17

Perused the Affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicant bank.

¶18

¶19

It is submitted by applicant bank that the present OA was filed for recovery of sum of Rs.44,12,978.82/- together with interest and costs. It is submitted that the OA was returned by the Registry on 19.03.2025 for compliance. However, compliance could not be completed within time, as some of the documents could not be obtained from the bank and furthermore some of the properties mentioned in the Original Application have been sold under SARFAESI Act. Further, transfer of concerned Branch Manager caused delay in obtaining relevant documents from applicant bank. Hence 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 429 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)-2020-8441 feels it apt to condone the delay and give opportunity to applicant to prosecute their case.

¶23

Accordingly, MA No.52/26 stands allowed and delay is condoned, subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal

¶24

¶25

Services Authority on or before 15.04.2026 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 20^th day of March, 2026)

City Union Bank Limited v. Jothi Impex and others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

City Union Bank Limited v. Jothi Impex and others

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