Allowed

State Bank of India v. Sasi

DRT8 May 2026MA/92/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an application for condonation of a 764-day delay in re-presenting an Original Application. The delay was excused due to the misplacement of documents when the applicant's counsel office relocated, relying on a Madras High Court judgment.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 764 days in re-presenting the OA condoned, subject to payment of Rs.5,000 to TN State Legal Services Authority.

State Bank of India versus Sasi — Banking and Recovery | 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.92 of 2026 in OA Dy. No.4766/2023

¶6

State Bank of India, R.A.C.P.C No.50, R.A.Plaza, Mount Poonamallee High road, Ayyappanthagal, Chennai-600056 Rep by its Manager (Maintenance) ...Applicant -Vs-

¶7

B.Sasi, W/o Babu, No.4, 1^st floor, Ramasami Padayachi street, Near Perumal kovil, Selaiyur, Chennai- 600073 Also at: B.Sasi, W/o Babu, Rainbow traders, No.6, Ground floor, Dhariya lakshmi street, Rajeswari nagar, Behind Nilgiris, Velachery road, Selaiyur, Chennai- 600073 Also at: B.Sasi, W/o Babu, Plot No.4&5, Flat No F-2, 1^st floor, Sushil nagar, Unamancheri, Near Unamancheri EB station, Chennai- 600048

¶8

P. Babu, S/o Perumal, No.4, 1^st floor, Ramasami Padayachi street, Near Perumal kovil, Selaiyur, Chennai- 600073

¶9

Also at: P. Babu, S/o Perumal, Chennai RR Medicos Pvt, Ltd, Shop NO.1, Old No.71, New No.137, Choolai High road, Chennai- 600112

¶10

¶11

Also at

¶12

P. Babu, S/o Perumal, Plot No.4&5, Flat No F-2, 1^st floor, Sushil nagar, Unamancheri, Near Unamancheri EB station, Chennai- 600048 …Defendants

¶13

Counsels on record / appeared:

¶14

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. B.Jawahar

¶15

ORDER IN MA No. 92/2026

¶16

MA No.92 of 2026 is taken up. This is an application filed by applicant bank for condonation of delay of 764 days in re-presenting the OA.

¶17

Perused the Affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicant bank.

¶18

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

¶19

recovery of sum of Rs.58,60,188/- (Rupees Fifty Eight Lakhs Sixty Thousand One Hundred and Eighty Eight only) together with interest and costs. The OA was returned by the Registry for compliance of defects. It is submitted that the clerk who had attended the defects, had misplaced some of the documents in the OA booklet. Subsequently, counsel’s office was shifted from Pallavaram to Kodambakkam, during which period, the missing papers were traced out. 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 764 days in representing the OA.

¶20

¶21

Perused the Affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicant bank 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 of Hon’ble High Court of Madras (At Madurai) in the judgment of

¶23

V.P. Rajula -Vs.- K.J. Sakadeva Raja reported in LAWS (MAD)2020-8-441 feels it apt to condone the delay and give opportunity to applicant to prosecute their case.

¶24

Accordingly, MA No.92/26 stands allowed and delay is condoned, subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- 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.

¶25

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.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

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

¶28

(Dictated to Steno (Roshnee), transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 08^th day of May, 2026)

State Bank of India v. Sasi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Sasi

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

Bank of Baroda versus Pandiyan

Selvaraj P versus City Union Bank Limited

Thamarai Selvi Hi Tech Rice Mill versus Canara Bank