Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
Smt Komal Agarawal vs STATE BANK OF INDIA on 12 May 2026
**IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL
VISAKHAPATNAM**
Present: - Sri Krishna Gopal Dwivedi,
Presiding Officer
Dated the 12<sup>th</sup> day of May, 2026
M.A. No. 63/2025 IN S.A. No.194 / 2024
**Between:**
Komal Agrawal, D/o. Shankarlal Agarwal, W/o. Deepak Bansal, Occ. Housewife, R/o. S.V. Basant Apartment, Kachiguda, Hyderabad.
.....Applicant
**And**
1. The State Bank of India, rep. by Authorized Officer, Stressed Assets, Management Branch – II Kacheguda, Hyderabad.
2. The Authorized Officer & Chief Manager, State Bank of India, SME Branch, 3<sup>rd</sup> Floor, Above Westside, Hyderabad.
.....Respondents
**Present:**
Ms. Surya Tarani, advocate for Applicant Sri S. Sudheer Reddy, advocate for Respondent bank
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
**ORDER**
In the above Miscellaneous Application, the petitioner has prayed to set aside the dismissal order dated 04.06.2025 in S.A.No.194/2024 along with the IA's and restore the dismissal order.
As per the M.A., the main SA was fixed for arguments on 24.03.2025 and was again posted for arguments on 01.04.2025, but due to non-representation, the matter was dismissed for default.
The applicant has filed M.A.No.43/2025 to set aside the dismissal order, and the same was posted to 30.04.2025. However, on 04.06.2025, the matter was dismissed for default for non-prosecution of the matter.
The petitioner has submitted in the petition that on 04.06.2025, while the applicant was coming to the court for filing the required requisites, she met with an accident and was not in a position to attend the court. Due to non-representation, the case was dismissed, and it was neither willful nor deliberate.
In the counter, the respondent bank nos.1 & 2 have prayed to dismiss this MA with exemplary costs.
As per the counter, the applicant is intentionally not appearing before this Tribunal and is filing petitions one after the other for restoration of S.A. and M.A., which is nothing but wasting the valuable time of this Tribunal. The petition filed by the petitioner is misconceived and filed with an intention to stall the recovery proceedings of the respondent bank.
After perusal of the record, I find that in M.A.No.43/2025, the matter was fixed for hearing on 04.06.2025, and on that day the applicant was absent. M.A.No.43/2025 was dismissed for default for non-prosecution of the matter.
The petitioner has filed the present M.A.No.63/2025 dated 02.07.2025, within time. Hence, in the interest of justice, I set aside the dismissal order dated 04.06.2025 which is in M.A.No.43/2025 and direct the Ld. Registrar to register the M.A.No.43/2025 on its original number and fix the case for hearing on M.A.No.43/2025 on 18/06/2026 and direct the both parties to present for hearing on M.A.No.43/2025 on above date.
Accordingly, M.A.No.63/2025 is hereby allowed on contest without costs.
(Dictated to steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 12<sup>th</sup> day May, 2026).
*[Handwritten signature and date: 12.05.2026]*
**PRESIDING OFFICER DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM**