Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Pandiyan

DRT8 May 2026MA/91/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application for condonation of delay in re-presenting an Original Application by Bank of Baroda. The delay was attributed to internal branch transfers and identification of papers. Permission is granted subject to payment of legacy dues to the Legal Services Authority.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of 184 days' delay; direction to pay Rs. 2,000 to TN State Legal Services Authority and file compliance report.

Bank of Baroda versus Pandiyan — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2026)

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

¶3

Dated this the 08^th day of May 2026

¶4

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA Presiding Officer

¶5

M.A. No.91 of 2026 in OA Dy. No.1035/2024

¶6

Bank of Baroda, Represented by its Senior Manager/ Authorised officer, Shiva Shanmugam street branch, No.8, Shiva Shanmugam Street Tambaram west, Chennai- 600045

¶7

...Applicant

¶8

-Vs-

¶9

Mr.Pandiyan.S S/o Sarangapani, No.742/2, Mettu street, Ullavur village, Walajabath Takuk, Kancheepuram district- 631 606

¶10

Mr. Sarangapani S/o Ellappan, Ullavur village, Walajabath Takuk, Kancheepuram district- 631 606 …Defendants

¶11

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶12

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. Vindhya Vasini.S, Adithya reddy

¶13

ORDER IN MA No. 91/2026

¶14

MA No.91 of 2026 is taken up. This is an application filed by applicant bank for condonation of delay of 184 days in re-presenting the OA.

¶15

Perused the Affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicant bank.

¶16

It is submitted by applicant bank that the present OA was filed for

¶17

recovery of sum of Rs.64,10,324/- (Rupees Sixty Four Lakhs Ten Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty Four only) together with

¶18

¶19

interest and costs. The OA was returned for certain clarifications by the Registry on 26.08.2024. It is submitted that the account was transferred from the Tambaram West Branch to the Regional Office Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Egmore and there was delay in getting the clarifications for the queries raised and to identify the papers. 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 184 days in representing the OA.

¶20

Perused the Affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicant bank

¶21

and 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

¶23

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)-

¶24

2020-8-441 feels it apt to condone the delay and give opportunity to applicant to prosecute their case.

¶25

Accordingly, MA No.91/26 stands allowed and delay is condoned, subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority on or before 05.06.2026 by the applicant and to file the compliance report before the Registry.

¶26

¶27

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.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

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

¶30

(Dictated to Steno (Roshnee), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in

¶31

Open Court, on this the 08^th day of May, 2026)

Bank of Baroda v. Pandiyan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Pandiyan

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

V Bharathi versus Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited

State Bank of India versus Dhatchanamoorthy

State Bank of India versus B Kalatharan

State Bank of India versus Sasi

Selvaraj P versus City Union Bank Limited

Thamarai Selvi Hi Tech Rice Mill versus Canara Bank