Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sri P Sakthivel

DRT24 Apr 2026MA/72/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed Misc. Applications filed by the applicant bank to condone a significant delay of 775 days in filing a restoration petition and restoring an original account that was previously dismissed for default. The case stands restored subject to conditions regarding payment of costs and filing a compliance report without unnecessary further adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay in 775 days and restoration of the Original Application dismissed on 28.11.2023, subject to payment of costs.

State Bank of India versus Sri P Sakthivel — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶3

Dated this the 24^th day of April, 2026

¶4

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA

¶5

Presiding Officer

¶6

Misc. Application Nos. 72/26 & 73/26 in TA No.558 of 2023

¶7

State Bank of India RASMECC Branch Madipakkam Home Branch No.231, II Floor, N.S.C. Bose Road Chennai – 600 001

¶8

Now merged with State Bank of India Migrated to Assets Recovery Management Branch No.44, Eldams Road, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018

¶9

…. Petitioner / Applicant

¶10

-Vs-

¶11

Sri. P. Sakthivel S/o Sri. Palanisamy No.46/10, Bharatheshwarar Colony 4^th Street, Kodambakkam Chennai – 600 024

¶12

.…Respondent / Defendant

¶13

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶14

Counsel for Applicant : M/s N. Kishore Kumar

¶15

: -ORDER ON MA Nos.72/26 & 73/26-:

¶16

MAs 72/26 and 73/26 are filed by applicant bank praying to condone

¶17

delay of 775 days in filing restoration petition and to restore TA, which was dismissed for default on 28.11.2023.

¶18

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.35,37,220/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs Thirty Seven

¶19

Uploaded on 24.04.2026 at 17:25 hours

¶20

¶21

Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty only) together with future interest and costs.

¶22

The Applicant Bank has filed the present petitions i.e., MA No.72/26 & 73/26 along with affidavit of Sh. M. Ramesh, Deputy Manager and Authorised Officer of applicant bank. It is submitted 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 DRT-II, Chennai as OA No.472/2018 for recovery of outstanding amount due from the defendant and thereafter due to bifurcation of jurisdiction, transferred to this Tribunal and re-numbered as TA No.558/2023.

¶23

It is further submitted that the OA was dismissed for default on 28.11.2023 due to non-prosecution. The dismissal of the case due to noncompliance of returns of proof affidavit came to the knowledge of the bank only much later. The counsel who was appearing for the applicant bank had moved on to become Standing Counsel before the Hon’ble High Court and there was also no proper representation or communication to the applicant bank. The erstwhile counsel also did not hand over the papers properly to the new counsel.

¶24

Uploaded on 24.04.2026 at 17:25 hours

¶25

¶26

The applicant bank submits that the original documents to be filed along with the Proof Affidavit went missing and inspite of repeated searches, it could not be traced and was traced out only at a later point of time. Further, the matter is connected with other matters which are investigated by CBI and some of the documents were also held by them. 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 775 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.35,37,220/- along with interest and for sale of mortgaged properties. After completion of service of summons, the defendant was placed ex-parte on 07.02.2019, subsequent to which, applicant bank had availed substantial number of adjournments upto November, 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 28.11.2023.

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

Uploaded on 24.04.2026 at 17:25 hours

¶32

¶33

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.

¶34

Accordingly, MAs 72/26 and 73/26 stands allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.3,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority on or before 08.05.2026 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.

¶35

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.

¶36

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

¶37

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 24^th day of April, 2026)

¶38

Uploaded on 24.04.2026 at 17:25 hours

State Bank of India v. Sri P Sakthivel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sri P Sakthivel

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 Bank versus Mr D Kalaiselvam And Other

State Bank of India versus Mahesh Ayar Viswanathan

Karur Vysya Bank versus M/S Sri Saha Agencies

Laksha Hospitals versus Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Private Limited

Mr R Suresh Kumar versus Karur Vysya Bank

State Bank of India versus The Opera International