Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
Mr. Tammineni chandra Sekhar Srinivas vs UNION BANK OF INDIA on 2 September 2026
**IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL
VISAKHAPATNAM**
Present: - Sri Krishna Gopal Dwivedi, Presiding Officer Dated the 2<sup>nd</sup> Day of September, 2026
M.A. No.66 of 2025
in
O.A. No.971 of 2019
**Between:**
Sri. Tamminen Chandra Sekhar Srinivas, S/o Sri. Laxminarayana, D.No.9-32/2, Sagipadu Village, Kamavarapukota Mandal, Eluru District.
.....Petitioner/Applicant
**And:**
Union Bank of India (e-Andhra Bank), Main Branch, Eluru Road, Gudivada, Krishna District.
.....Respondent
**Present:-**
Ld. Counsel for Applicant
- Sri. M.V.S. Rama Rao
Ld. Counsel for Respondent
- Sri. Y. Satya Prasad
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 MA, the applicant has prayed to condone the delay of 1073 days in filing the set aside petition and permit this petitioner to adduce evidence in the OA No.971/2019.
As per petitioner, he is the main defendant in OA No.971/2019. An exparte decree was passed on 03.03.2020 against the defendant. As per petitioner, respondent bank has not rightly calculated the loan amounts and rate of interest as per sanctioned terms and conditions. The respondent bank has not filed calculation memo before this Tribunal and obtained orders on 06.07.2022 in OA No.971/2019.
As per MA, the petitioner has received demand notice from the Recovery Officer and then he came to know that the order was passed on 06.07.2022 in the OA No.971/2019. As per MA, the non-attendance of the petitioner is neither willing nor wonton. As per petitioner, it is necessary to set aside the exparte order dt.06.07.2022 passed in OA No.971/2019.
In counter dt.16.07.2026, the respondent bank has prayed to dismiss the MA with exemplary costs.
As per counter, OA No.971/2019 was finally decided on merits and final order was passed on 06.07.2022. The applicant has filed the present petition on 13.06.2025 after an inordinate and unexplained delay. This petition is barred by limitation and is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner has not explained day to day delay. The exparte order passed against the petitioner was on account of his own default due to non-appearance on 03.02.2020. The loan account is calculated as per the sanctioned terms and conditions of the loan. The notice was duly served on the defendant in OA.
I have heard the Ld. Counsels of both parties. Perused the record.
In OA No.971/2019, notice was not served on the defendants, hence substituted service of summons was ordered and the respondent bank has filed proof of paper publication of Sakshi Newspaper. The defendants were called absent and set exparte. At last on 06.07.2022, exparte order was passed against the defendant.
In petition, the petitioner has not given explanation of day to day delay. The petitioner has also not given any specific reason for non-appearance in OA No.917/2019.
On the basis of the above discussion, I find that petitioner has not explained the delay as per prescribed rule, hence, MA No.66/2025 is hereby dismissed on contest without costs. Accordingly, its counter is also disposed of.
[Dictated to steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day of 2<sup>nd</sup> September, 2026]
**PRESIDING OFFICER DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM**