Allowed

Punjab and Sind Bank v. M/S J Kaizen Consortium

DRT17 Apr 2026MA/80/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The DRT allowed an application for condonation of 258 days delay in re-presenting an Originating Application filed by a bank to recover funds. Delay was excused due to an advocate's failure to inform about the application's return, relying on a High Court precedent regarding public money custodians.

What did the court decide?

MA No.80/26 stands allowed; delay condoned subject to payment of Rs. 3,000/- cost to TNSLSA within by 22.05.2026.

Punjab and Sind Bank versus M/S J Kaizen Consortium — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶3

Dated this the 17^th day of April 2026

¶4

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶5

M.A. No.80 of 2026 in OA Dy. No.1738 of 2022

¶6

Punjab and Sind Bank Mount Road Branch

161, Anna Salai,

Chennai 600002

Rep. by its Manager

...Applicant

-Vs-

Ms. J. Kaizen Consortium

¶13

Rep by its Partners,

¶14

Regd, Office:- No.3/9, Sridaran Street, Ayyavoo Colony, Aminijikarai,

¶15

Chennai 600 029.

¶16

Mr. Johnson Antony Raj,

¶17

Partner, M/s. J. Kaizen Consortium, S/o. Mr. Periyanayaga Samy,

¶18

Door No.E1, Johnson Towers, No.9, Pilkington Road, Ayyanavaram, Chennai-600 023

¶19

Mr. Amaly Dorothy. J, Partner, M/s. J. Kaizen Consortium, W/o. Mr. Joseph, No.17, Micetich Colony, Madhavaram High Road, Madhavaram, Chennai-600 060 …Defendants

¶20

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶21

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. R. Krishnamoorthy

¶22

ORDER IN MA No. 80/2026

¶23

MA No. 80 of 2026 is taken up. This is an application filed by applicant

¶24

bank for condonation of delay of 258 days in re-presenting the OA.

¶25

Uploaded on 17.04.2026 at 15:00 hours

¶26

¶27

Perused the Affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicant bank.

¶28

It is submitted by applicant bank that the present OA was filed for recovery of sum of Rs.2,44,06,004.38p (Rupees Two Crores Forty Four Lakhs Six Thousand Four Thirty Eight Paisa only) together with interest and costs. It is submitted that the OA was returned by the Registry for compliance of objections. The Junior Advocate had kept the OA bundle along with other case papers in the office under lock and key and proceeded to his home town as his father was unwell, who had been hospitalised for treatment. As the junior Advocate did not inform about the return of OA, the 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 258 days in representing the OA.

¶29

Perused the Affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicant bank and

¶30

the records of the case.

¶31

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.

¶32

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

¶33

441 feels it apt to condone the delay and give opportunity to applicant to prosecute their case.

¶34

Uploaded on 17.04.2026 at 15:00 hours

¶35

¶36

Accordingly, MA No.80/26 stands allowed and delay is condoned, subject to payment of cost of Rs.3,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority on or before 22.05.2026 by the applicant and to file the compliance report before the Registry.

¶37

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 stands dismissed automatically without there being any need to pass separate order.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

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

¶40

(Dictated to Steno (Arti), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 17^th day of April, 2026)

¶41

Uploaded on 17.04.2026 at 15:00 hours

Punjab and Sind Bank v. M/S J Kaizen Consortium

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab and Sind Bank v. M/S J Kaizen Consortium

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

Bank of India versus Andhra Spicy House

Ms Hashini Enterprises versus Punjab National Bank

Canara Bank versus Ms Sparv Techologies Pvt. Ltd.

Hdfc Bank versus Mohamed Alirefaideen

Karur Vysya Bank versus M/S Svlp Travels

N Selvam versus Selvam