Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED vs MS VENKATA SAI COTTON TRADERS on 24 September 2026
**IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL
VISAKHAPATNAM**
Present: - Sri Krishna Gopal Dwivedi, Presiding Officer Dated the 24<sup>th</sup> Day of September, 2026
M.A. No.142 of 2023
in
O.A. No.772 of 2022
**Between:**
Karnataka Bank Limited, Trunk Road, Guntur, Rep. by its Manager and Power of Attorney Holder.
.....Petitioner
**And:**
1. M/s. Venkata Sai Cotton Traders, Rep. by its Proprietor Goli Vinayaka Rao, C/o Srinivasa Ginning Mill, D.No.10/G, Etukuru Bypass, Guntur.
2. Sri. Goli Vinayaka Rao, S/o Sri. Krishnaiah, D.No.2-199, Near Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Etukuru Village and Post, Guntur-522017.
3. Smt. Goli Venkayamma, W/o Sri. Vinayaka Rao, D.No.2-199, Near Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Etukuru Village and Post, Guntur-522017.
.....Respondents/Defendants
**Present:-**
Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner
- Sri. M. Sravan Kumar
Ld. Counsel for the Respondents
- Sri. B. Bala Sundar
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 petitioner has prayed to condone the delay of 138 days in filing the restoration petition for OA 772/2022 which was dismissed on 21.04.2023.
In the above MA, the petitioner has submitted that the OA was filed for recovery of Rs.3,59,42.310/-. The petitioner counsel could not represent the case because he has not noted down correct date and the OA was dismissed for default for non-appearance.
In counter, the respondent bank has prayed to dismiss the MA with exemplary costs. As per counter, the respondents have submitted that the petitioner has not explained single date. The explanation given by the petitioner is not genuine. A proper reason is not given by the applicant to condone the delay of 138 days.
The Ld. Counsel of the respondents has also filed written arguments. The Ld. Counsel of the respondents referred the Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati passed in W.P. No.15706/2023.
The Ld. Counsel of the respondents also referred the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in *Civil Appeal Nos.6974 & 6975 of 2013* in the case of '*Basawarak & Ors., -vs- The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer*'.
The Ld. Counsel of the respondents also referred the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in *Civil Appeal No.7696/2021* in the case of '*Majji Sannemma -vs- Reddy Sridevi & Ors.*
After perusal of the record, I find that the petitioner has filed the OA for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,59,42,310/-. After perusal of the record, it reveals that on 21.04.2023, on repeated calls, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner and hence, the OA 772/2022 was dismissed for default.
Considering the nature of the case and period of delay, in the interest of justice. I allow MA 142/2023 with a cost of Rs.5000/- and direct the petitioner to pay this amount in the account of Prime Minister Relief Fund within 10 days from the date of passing of this order.
Accordingly, MA 142/2023 is hereby allowed on contest with costs. I direct the Ld. Registrar to register the MA for filing restoration petition and fix the case for filing counter in MA on 02.11.2026.
[Dictated to steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day of 24<sup>th</sup> September, 2026]
24.09.2026 PRESIDING OFFICER DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM