Partly allowed

Indian Bank v. S Sankaralingam Chettiar

DRT1 Jul 2026TA/1/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai, rejected a counter claim filed by Defendants 1 & 2 against the original applicants. The Tribunal held the counter claim, filed in 2024, was highly barred under limitation as it was submitted nearly 24 years after the reply statement.

What did the court decide?

The counter claim bearing Old No. 1/2025 stands rejected as highly barred under limitation. The trust application file is remanded to DRT, Madurai for disposal of the original OA.

Indian Bank versus S Sankaralingam Chettiar — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –I AT CHENNAI

¶2

Dated this 1st Day of July, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SHRI A.S.JAYACHANDRA Presiding Officer

¶4

T.A. No.2 of 2026

¶5

[a/w Counter Claim not registered in this DRT

¶6

(Old CC No.1/2025, DRT, Madurai)]

¶7

M/s. Sankaralingam Chettiar

¶8

Sole Prop. S. Senthilathiban

¶9

18, Thangasalai Street

¶10

Aruppukottai – 626 101.

¶11

Mrs. S. Jayalakshmi W/o S. Senthilathiban

¶12

67, Josiam Shanmugam Chettiar Street Aruppukottai – 626 101

¶13

Virudhunagar District.

Tamil Nadu

. . . Applicants

Versus

Indian Bank

¶18

Aruppukottai Branch Aruppukottai, Represented by its Zonal Manager, Aruppukottai Virudhunagar District.

¶19

M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office KPV Complex Pandalgudi Road Aruppukottai – 626 101. Virudhunagar District.

¶20

¶21

The Reliance Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. Represented by its Chief Manager Registered Office at Reliance Centre 6^th Floor, North Wing off Western Express Highway Santacruz (East) Mumbai – 400 055. . . . Defendants

¶22

: - PROCEEDINGS DT.01.07.2026 - :

¶23

Applicant in TA by Sh. Kailsh, Adv.

¶24

D1 & D2 – Counter claimants by Ms.Swathi.P

¶25

Defendant No.3 by Sh.G.Illangovan – undertakes to file the vakalatanama

¶26

It is seen from the order sheet that the matter which was pending before DRT, Madurai is transferred to this Tribunal by noting the following:

¶27

(a) OA was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.50,52,074/- against D1 & D2 along with interest. – The OA was filed in the year 1999.

¶28

(b) It is noted that the Defendants 1 & 2 had filed the counter claim numbered as CC 1/2025 before DRT, Madurai, for a sum of Rs.651.30 Crores.

¶29

(c) Since the counter claim is filed for a sum of Rs.651.30 Crores, the pecuniary jurisdiction to try the case involving more than Rs.100 Crores is with this Tribunal.

¶30

(d) Thus opining, the entire matter is sent to this Tribunal, by the Ld. DRT, Madurai.

¶31

Today, the parties appear through their counsel. Let the counter claim be registered in this Tribunal.

¶32

¶33

This matter was taken up before the Ld. DRT, Madurai as per the directions of the Hon’ble High Court as could be seen from the order sheets dated 13.04.2026 and 19.05.2026. Considering the directions passed, the matter cannot be adjourned any further and impending registration of the counter claim, the same is considered for the expeditious disposal.

¶34

Orders on Counter claim:-

¶35

As noted above, the Bank had filed the OA for recovery of a sum of Rs.50,52,074/- on 11.01.1999.

¶36

The Order Sheet shows that the reply statement of Defendants have been filed 24 years ago as per the order sheet of Registrar dated 07.08.2001.

¶37

On 05.10.2001, the matter was posted for cross – examination, since none represented the Defendants and the matter was adjourned for cross – examination of Bank Witness by 13.11.2001.

¶38

The Counter Claim No.1/2025 (Registered before DRT, Madurai) is filed on 22.10.2024, after an inordinate delay of 24 years.

¶39

It is clear from the above, that the Counter Claim is filed nearly after two and half decades.

¶40

Section 19(5) of the RDB Act, 1993 prescribes that after the date of service of summons, the Written Statement, Claim for set-off or a Counter Claim under Section 19(8) if any shall be filed within a period of thirty days .

¶41

Section 19(8) provides for filing the Counter Claim before the Defendants have delivered their defense or before the time limited for delivering the defense has expired.

¶42

A clear reading of the provisions of Section 19(5) and Section 19(8), establishes that the Counter Claim ought to have been filed within the time provided for delivering the defense. In the present case, the WS was filed in the year 2001. Counter Claim is filed in the year 2024. This makes it very clear that the Counter Claim is filed after two and half decades and the counter claimants had slept over for nearly two and half decades and woke up in the year 2024.

¶43

¶44

The dates are explicitly seen from the record. Thus the Counter Claim placed before this Tribunal is highly barred under limitation and the same cannot be entertained after two and half decades.

¶45

10.For the above said reasons, the Counter Claim is being disposed of by the following:

¶46

: - O R D E R - :

¶47

Counter Claim bearing Old No.1/2025 (as registered before the Ld. DRT, Madurai) stands rejected as highly barred under limitation.

¶48

A copy of this order be communicated to the parties namely the Defendants 1 & 2 and the plaintiff bank.

¶49

The TA file bearing No.2/2026 (Old No.TA 2/2025 of DRT, Madurai) be sent back along with the entire records for disposal in accordance with law since this Tribunal cannot entertain at the adjudication of the TA for want of pecuniary jurisdiction, in the backdrop of the counter claim being disposed of as rejected. This matter be listed before Ld. DRT, Madurai on 22.07.2026 for appropriate orders.

¶50

Sd/(A.S.JAYACHANDRA)

¶51

PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-I, CHENNAI

¶52

(Dictated to PS who typed in the system, corrected, signed and pronounced in open court on this 1^st Day of July, 2026)

¶53

Indian Bank v. S Sankaralingam Chettiar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Bank v. S Sankaralingam Chettiar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Limited versus M/s Pmt Traders

Punjab National Bank versus R Appadurai

R Subramonian versus The Chief Judicial Magistrate

Shri Narayana Traders versus State Bank of India

Shri Narayanan Traders versus State Bank of India

Bank of Baroda versus M/s. Madurai Idly Shop