CORPORATION BANK vs M/s. AATHITHAN PAPER INDUSTRIES on 4 August 2026

ORDER

1. This application is filed by the applicant bank praying to condone the delay of 2637 days in filing the application to set aside the order of dismissal dated 24.07.2018. Averments in the Petition

2. The above OA has been filed by the erstwhile Corporation Bank which has been amalgamated with the Union Bank of India and has been transferred from Kaveripakkam Branch of the applicant bank to the Asset Recovery Branch, Chennai for effective follow up.

3. The erstwhile Corporation Bank filed the instant OA No.110 of 2017 for recovery of a sum of Rs.71,50,307.50p against the defendant. The summon was duly served on the defendants but the defendants failed to appear and hence were set ex-parte on 31.07.2017. The Proof Affidavit was filed on 06.12.2017 and the same was returned for compliance. The Counsel for the Applicant had on 28.6.2018 re-presented the PA & OD after rectifying the defect. Since then till the next date of hearing i.e., 24.07.2018, out Advocate was constantly following up with the Registry but the officials in the registry till last moment gave false hope that everything was alright and it will be placed before the Tribunal, whereas to the shock and surprise of our Counsel on Record on 24.07.2018 at about 10.30 A.M. the Proof Affidavit has been returned with frivolous grounds.

4. On 24.07.2018 the Junior Counsel sought time for compliance but the OA was dismissed for non-compliance without noting that the proof affidavit was returned only on 24.07.2018 by the Registry.

5. The matter was called on 24.07.2018 before the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal and the Junior Counsel sought time for compliance but the Presiding Officer dismissed the OA for non-prosecution without noting that the proof affidavit was scrutinized on 23.07.2018 returned only on 24.07.2018 for compliance.

6. An application for setting aside the order of dismissal had been filed vide SR No.6383 on 23.08.2018 within 30 days and was not numbered by the registry DRT-III Chennai. The case paper was transferred to DRT-I on change in the jurisdiction on filing a memo by Counsel on December 2018 it was renumbered as TA No.10 of 2022 on the file of DRT-I. Again during 2024 the case has been transferred to DRT-II. When we enquired with the registry as to the application filed for setting aside the dismissal order of the OA vide SR No.6383 of 2018 on 23.08.2018 the registry informed that the application and affidavit are not available, hence the present affidavit and petition. A true copy of affidavit filed vide SR No.6083 on 23.08.2018 on the file of DRT-III is also enclosed.

7. The order passed by the Tribunal is against the purpose and nature of the statute. Instead of facilitating the bank to expedite the recovery it has acted against the interest of the bank. The order appears to be perverse on the face of it. The order passed by the Tribunal is invalid and against the principal of natural justice. If the order is not set aside the applicant bank will be put to loss and hardship as the OA is filed for recovery of public money and on the other hand no prejudice will be caused to anyone.

8. The IA for restoration has been filed within the period of 30 days before DRT-III Chennai but the same was not transferred to DRT-I while transferring the case file to DRT-I and hence by way of abundant caution the applicant bank is filing application for condonation of delay of 2637 days in filing the application for restoration.

9. The delay is neither willful nor wanton but for the reason stated supra. If the delay is not condoned the applicant bank will be put to much hardship as the proceeding is for recovery of public money and on the other hand no prejudice would be caused to the defendant. Hence the delay of 2637 days be condoned.

10. Heard the Ld. Counsel for the applicant bank and perused the records.

11. Having heard the Ld. Counsel for the applicant bank and after perusing the records, the only point that arises for consideration is:

Whether the instant application filed for condonation of delay of 2637 days delay in filing the application to set aside the order of dismissal dated 24.07.2018 is liable to be allowed?

12. Before going into the merits of the application, it will be pertinent to look into the progression of the case.

13. Originally this case was filed before DRT-III Chennai as OA No.110/2017. The defendants were set ex-parte on 31.07.2017. When the OA was at the stage of re-presentation of Proof Affidavit along with Original documents (PA & OD), the case was dismissed for default and non-prosecution on 24.07.2018. Thereafter, pursuant to the Notification of Ministry of Finance dated 24.08.2018 the case was transferred to DRT-I Chennai, owing to the jurisdiction. Pursuant to the transfer to DRT-I Chennai, the case was renumbered as TA No.10/2021. Thereafter, again the case was transferred from DRT-I Chennai to DRT-II Chennai on 21.6.2024 in pursuance to the Gazette Notification dated 04.10.2022, which was received by this Tribunal and number assigned as NDN (TA) No.1237/2025.

14. At this stage, as the Ld. Counsel for the applicant made a representation to place the case before the Bench to hear on the petition to restore the TA which was filed before DRT-III, Chennai, a thorough scrutiny was made and it was found that no such application was on file. Hence, this Tribunal had written a letter dated 23.10.2024 to DRT-I to clarify about the restoration petition and for forwarding the same, if the same was not sent for further proceedings.

15. Pursuant to the letter of the Tribunal, registry of DRT-I had written a letter to DRT-III Chennai on 29.10.2024 for doing the needful. As no reply was received from DRT-III Chennai, DRT-I has placed the same before the Bench on 23.4.2025 and an order was passed by the Ld. PO, DRT-I Chennai to place the case before Ld. PO, DRT-III Chennai for suitable directions to the Registry. The observations of the Ld. Presiding Officer,

DRT-I Chennai in the said proceedings are necessarily to be taken into consideration while deciding this application.

16. Thereafter, DRT-III Chennai sent a letter dated 9.7.2025 to DRT-I Chennai stating that the file alongwith the missing restoration petition filed by the applicant bank vide SR No.6383/2018 is returned herewith. On receipt of the said letter, DRT-I placed the same before the Bench on 11.07.2025 and the Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT-I had directed the registry to transmit the entire file along with the document received from DRT-III Chennai to DRT-II for disposal in accordance with law.

17. The few observations of the Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT-I Chennai on dated 11.07.2025 are as under: - (a) Thereafter the Applicant Bank had filed an application in the year 2024 dated 08.09.2024 for restoration by enclosing an affidavit dated 23.08.2018 which is not even attested by the Oath Commissioner or the Notary. However, the unnumbered IA of 2024 bears the seal of DRT- III bearing No.6383 and a dubious date as 23.08.2018 (By a mere glance, this shows that the seal of the DRT-III showing interpolation / extrapolation to manage the year of filing since writing on the pen is seen on the rubber stamp impressed).

(b) The Registry, DRT-III had not placed this IA before the PO immediately in the year 2018, if it was so filed, but perhaps due to the observation made above.

(c) However, consequent to the jurisdictional changes vide notification dated 24.08.2018, this OA was directed to be transferred to DRT-I Chennai.

(d) The DRT-I Chennai received the file upon the transfer order and numbered as TA No.10 of 2021 without the said documents described above. The bank had also not pressed about the restoration before DRT-I. It filed the said application before DRT-III mentioning it as pending before DRT-II.

(e) The DRT-III while sending the file had not forwarded the unnumbered IA for restoration noted above.

(f) The Registry of this Tribunal had written letters to the Registry of DRT-III, to send the missing document as seen from the letter dated 29.10.2024.

(g) However, the Applicant having slept over all these years had made a submission only on 23.04.2025 intimating about the missing IA and had also sought for proceeding with the matter further. Thereafter by an order dated 23.04.2025 upon the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel Sh.

Sivabalan, this Tribunal passed an order as regards the missing IA. A direction was given to the Registrar, DRT-III to issue an endorsement about the missing document so that the file be re-constructed in the wke of the Registry of DRT-III not responding to the request of the Registry of this Tribunal.

(h) Upon such direction, the ART of DRT-III vide letter dated 09.07.2024 had placed the said missing document which description is already stated in para above. The document received is a typed matter bearing IA No.NIL of 2024 bearing a queer some anti date as 23.08.2018 with an unattested affidavit and the IA bearing dated 08.09.2024.

(i) Be that as it may with all the observations noted, the said papers received only on 09.07.2025 as per the letter of AR, DRT-III dated 09.07.2025 is perused.

(j) It is clear that the bank did not follow up the restoration / a clear manipulation of dates with an unattested affidavit and now seeks restoration of the file on record.

(k) As noted above, the amount of debt involved is Rs.71,50,307/-. As per the notification of DFS dated 04.10.2022, this Tribunal lacks the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present TA and the Registry of this Tribunal notes that the same is now vested with the Ld. DRT-II.

(l) For the aforesaid reasons, the entire file along with the document received from DRT-III, Chennai be transmitted to the DRT-II for disposal in accordance with law.

18. This Tribunal has carefully considered the pleadings, the records available on file, the observations made by the Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Chennai, and the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant bank.

19. The applicant seeks condonation of an extraordinary delay of 2637 days in filing the application to set aside the order of dismissal dated 24.07.2018. Though the applicant attempts to contend that a restoration application had allegedly been presented before DRT-III within the prescribed period and that the same was subsequently misplaced during transfer of records, the burden squarely lies upon the applicant to establish the said plea by producing cogent and convincing material. Except for making bald averments, no satisfactory explanation has been furnished to establish that the applicant had been diligently pursuing the matter throughout the intervening period.

20. It is pertinent to note that the records disclose that after dismissal of the OA on 24.07.2018, the applicant bank remained inactive for several years. Even after the case was transferred from DRT-III to DRT-I pursuant to the

jurisdictional notification and was subsequently renumbered as TA No.10/2021, no effective steps were taken by the applicant to ascertain the status of the alleged restoration application or to seek appropriate relief before the competent Tribunal. Again, upon the subsequent transfer of the matter to DRT-II, the applicant failed to demonstrate any continuous or bona fide follow-up. Such prolonged inaction is wholly inconsistent with the conduct expected of a nationalised bank prosecuting recovery proceedings involving public money.

21. This Tribunal also cannot lose sight of the serious observations recorded by the Ld. Presiding Officer, DRT-I, Chennai regarding the documents subsequently produced by the applicant. The purported restoration application bears indications which cast doubt on its authenticity, including the interpolation noticed in the seal, the unattested affidavit, and the discrepancy between the dates reflected in the documents. Though this Tribunal refrains from rendering any conclusive finding regarding the genuineness of those documents, such circumstances certainly do not inspire confidence and cannot constitute a satisfactory basis for condoning an enormous delay.

22. The explanation offered by the applicant is vague and unsupported by any contemporaneous correspondence, diary entries, acknowledgements, or other documentary evidence demonstrating that the applicant was diligently pursuing the restoration application from 2018 onwards. Mere allegations that the Registry had misplaced the application, without substantiating the same by reliable evidence or explaining the prolonged silence for more than seven years, cannot constitute "sufficient cause" within the meaning of law.

23. It is well settled that while the expression "sufficient cause" deserves a liberal construction to advance substantial justice, such liberal approach cannot be extended to condone gross negligence, inaction, lack of bona fides or unexplained delay. The law of limitation is founded upon public policy to ensure certainty and finality in judicial proceedings. A litigant seeking condonation of an inordinate delay must satisfactorily explain the delay for the entire period. In the present case, the applicant has failed to discharge that burden.

24. The conduct of the applicant bank throughout the proceedings also disentitles it to the discretionary relief sought. The applicant has failed to prosecute the Original Application diligently, allowed the matter to remain unattended for years together, did not pursue the alleged restoration petition before the successive Tribunals after transfer of jurisdiction, and has approached this Tribunal only after an extraordinary lapse of time. Such negligent and casual conduct cannot be rewarded by invoking the discretionary jurisdiction under the law of limitation.

25. This Tribunal is therefore of the considered view that the applicant has failed to establish any sufficient or bona fide cause for condonation of the inordinate delay of 2637 days. Entertaining such an application in the absence of a satisfactory explanation would defeat the very object of the law of limitation and undermine the principle of finality of judicial proceedings.

26. Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

(a) IA No.629 of 2026 seeking condonation of delay of 2637 days in filing the application to set aside the dismissal order dated 24.07.2018 is dismissed.

(b) Consequently, the application for restoration, being barred by limitation, does not survive for consideration and stands rejected.

(c) No order as to costs. 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 4th day of August, 2026)