Allowed

State Bank of India v. Jeeva R

DRT13 Apr 2026MA/53/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed motions to condone a 3980-day delay in filing a substitution petition and permitted M/s Asset Reconstruction Company to replace State Bank of India in underlying proceedings after the loan account was settled and mortgage discharged.

What did the court decide?

Motions 53/26, 54/26 and 55/26 allowed; substitution of M/s Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited as applicant permitted.

State Bank of India versus Jeeva R — Company and Corporate | DRT (2026)

¶1

MAs 53/26, 54/26 & 55/26 in TA No.05/2026

¶2

13.04.2026

¶3

¶4

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶5

Dated this the 13^th day of April, 2026

¶6

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶7

M.A. Nos.53/26, 54/26 & 55/26

¶8

¶9

T.A. No.05 of 2026

¶10

M/s. ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LTD., Registered office at The Ruby, 10th Floor, 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (w) Mumbai - 400 028

¶11

Branch Office at No. 560-562, Century Plaza, 1G, 1st Floor, Teynampet,

¶12

Tamil Nadu, Chennai – 600 018

¶13

….Petitioner / Applicant

¶14

M/s State Bank of India Stressed Assets Recovery Branch Red Cross Building, II Floor

¶15

No.32, Montieth Road, Egmore

¶16

Chennai – 600 008

¶17

Rep. by its Authorised Officer …Applicant bank

¶18

-Vs–

¶19

Mrs. R. Jeeva

¶20

Mr. Thomas Victor

¶21

Both residing at

¶22

No.1/23, Perumal Mudali Street

¶23

Royapettah, Chennai – 600 042 ……Respondents/Defendants

¶24

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶25

Counsel for Petitioner : M/s. G. Sakthivel

¶26

Uploaded in E-Drt on 13.04.2026 at 03.50 p.m.,

¶27

MAs 53/26, 54/26 & 55/26 in TA No.05/2026

¶28

¶29

13.04.2026

¶30

: - ORDER ON MA NOs.53/26 to 55/26 - :

¶31

The Original Application is filed by M/s State Bank of India, against the Defendants, seeking main relief to order the respondents 1 and 2, who are 1^st and 2^nd Defendants in the OA, to pay a sum of Rs.10,51,886.80p (Rupees Ten Lakhs Fifty One Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty Six and Eighty Paise only) with further interest and costs.

¶32

The Petitioner has filed the present petitions i.e., MA No.53/26, 54/26 and 55/26 along with affidavit of Authorised Signatory – Sh. Karthikeyan Jayavel, to condone the delay of 3980 days in filing substitution petition, to reopen the TA and to substitute the name of M/s Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company Limited to be added as assignee applicant in place of State Bank of India to conduct the TA No.05/2026.

¶33

It is submitted that the OA No.27/2010 (before DRT-II) was initiated by State Bank of India against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.10,51,886.80p together with contractual interest and the said OA was allowed vide final order dated 06.07.2010 and DRC No.232 of 2010 came to be issued in terms of the final order. Subsequently the OA was transferred to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA No.05/2026. During the pendency of recovery proceedings, the applicant bank had assigned various loan accounts including the subject Loan of respondents 2 and 3, who are defendants / borrowers of credit facilities from State Bank of India since assigned to M/s Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited by way of Assignment Agreement dated 11.02.2015.

¶34

Uploaded in E-Drt on 13.04.2026 at 03.50 p.m.,

¶35

MAs 53/26, 54/26 & 55/26 in TA No.05/2026

¶36

¶37

13.04.2026

¶38

It is further submitted that subsequent to assignment, a transfer memo was field before the DRT-II, stating that the above OA falls within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal and seeking transfer of the matter for the purpose of returning the original documents. Accordingly, OA 27 of 2010 was transferred to this Tribunal and re-numbered as TA No.05 of 2026. Due to pendency of the transfer proceedings, administrative formalities, verification of records, internal approvals and procedural delays arising out of the assignment and transfer of the case from DRT-II to DRT-III, the applicant bank could not file the substitution petition within time. Hence, there was a delay of 3980 days in filing the IA seeking to substitute them in the place of 1^st respondent herein. The delay was only due to the aforesaid reasons, which is neither willful nor wanton.

¶39

It is further submitted by the petitioner that in the meanwhile, the respondents 1 and 2 had approached the applicant bank and offered to pay Rs.11 lakhs towards the One Time Settlement, which was accordingly considered and respondents 1 and 2 had paid the amount towards full and final settlement of the OA claim. Thus, the loan account is settled and mortgage is discharged.

¶40

Thus submitting, counsel prayed for condonation of delay in filing substitution petition, to reopen the TA and for substitution of proposed applicant in place of assignor, so as to record the settlement and take return of documents for handing it over to the respondents 1 and 2.

¶41

Uploaded in E-Drt on 13.04.2026 at 03.50 p.m.,

¶42

MAs 53/26, 54/26 & 55/26 in TA No.05/2026

¶43

13.04.2026

¶44

¶45

Heard the counsel for petitioner and perused the records of

¶46

the case .

¶47

The applicant bank has filed the OA for recovery of a sum of Rs.10,51,886.80p along with interest and for sale of mortgaged properties. OA was filed before DRT-II, Chennai and assigned OA No.27/2010. Subsequently, due to bifurcation of jurisdiction, OA was transferred to this Tribunal and re-numbered as TA No.5 of 2026. During the pendency of the OA, the applicant bank, State Bank of India had assigned the debt along with underlying securities to M/s Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited, vide Assignment Agreement dated 11.02.2015.

¶48

During the pendency of recovery proceedings in DRC, the parties have arrived at a negotiated settlement for a sum of Rs.11 lakhs towards full satisfaction of the OA claim, which payment was reported to have been received from the respondents 1 and 2 towards full satisfaction of OA claim. Consequent upon payment, the loan account is settled and mortgage also stands discharged.

¶49

In view of settlement reported by the parties and the necessity for the petitioner to get back the documents for handing it over to the respondents 1 and 2 and in view of the fact that M/s Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited 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-

¶50

Uploaded in E-Drt on 13.04.2026 at 03.50 p.m.,

¶51

MAs 53/26, 54/26 & 55/26 in TA No.05/2026

¶52

13.04.2026

¶53

¶54

441 feels it apt to condone the delay and to permit the assignee to continue

¶55

the TA in place of assignor bank, as per the Assignment Agreement.

¶56

Accordingly, MAs 53/26, 54/26 and 55/26 stands allowed permitting substitution of M/s Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited in place of applicant.

¶57

Sd/-

¶58

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

¶59

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

¶60

Uploaded in E-Drt on 13.04.2026 at 03.50 p.m.,

State Bank of India v. Jeeva R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Jeeva R

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

shri C Durai Son of Chidambaram versus Punjab National Bank

Union Bank of India versus Bilaverndiran

Bank of Baroda versus Srikara Bojana

Central Bank of India versus Ms R Tech Industries

Canara Bank versus Ilangovelan and One Another

Canara Bank versus Prabahakaran