The Tribunal allowed an interlocutory application dispensing with the production of the impugned order and directed the Registry to entertain the maintainability of the appeal by leaving the question of limitation open.
IA Dy No.1087/2026 allowed; certified copy production dispensed for two months; Registry directed to accept the SA with limitation question left open.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –II AT CHENNAI
Dated this 11th day of June, 2026
PRESENT: SHRI SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY PRESIDING OFFICER
NDN SA No. 825 of 2026
S. Sundar Son of Mr. Subramanian No.14.9.19, Priya Complex, Surandai Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu – 627 859
…Applicant
Versus
M/s IDFC First Bank Ltd., Office at India Bulls Centre Tower 2A & 2B, 10th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel (W), Mumbai – 400 013
Branch Office at Calavala’s Centenary Centre, 3rd Floor Door No.9, Club House Road Opp. Taj Club House Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002 …Respondent
ORDERS ON MAINTAINABILITY
1
2. Dispense with production of certified copy of order
dated 15.12.2025 in Crl. M.P. No.13510 of 2025 (IA Dy No.1087/2026 is filed .”
2
Authorized Officer, Indian Bank wherein Hon’ble High Court has
held;
“If the Tribunal found that the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate was communicated to the petitioner only on 05.02.2024 then the petitioner’s appeal can be entertained by the Tribunal without insisting upon a condone delay application. If it is found that the petitioner had knowledge about the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate prior to the said date, then it is for the Tribunal to decide whether the appeal can be entertained without filing any application for condonation of delay. It is open to the respondent bank to canvas their objections before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, at the time of hearing of the appeal.”
IA Dy No.1087 of 2026 – To dispense with the production certified copy of the order of Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in
Crl. M. P. No.13510 of 2025 dated 15.12.2025.
3
that in the event the applicant fails to produce the certified copy of the impugned order as undertaken appropriate orders may be passed after the expiry of the period.
Sd/- (SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY ) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, CHENNAI
(Dictated to PS, who typed in the system directly, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this 11th day of June, 2026)
4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Debt Recovery Tribunal can admit an appeal filed beyond the period of limitation without condonation of delay based on the date of knowledge.
Whether the Registry is directed to entertain the maintainability of the appeal by leaving the question of limitation open at the final stage.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P.Jeyakumari Vs The Authorized Officer, Indian BankFollowed¶22
W.P(MD) No. 3073/2024 dated 12.02.2024 P.Jeyakumari Vs The Authorized Officer, Indian Bank
S. Sundar
M/s IDFC First Bank Ltd.
SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
SHARANG DHAR UPADHYAY
Parties & counsel
