STATE BANK OF INDIA vs Mr.S.Purshothaman on 18 August 2026

1. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited Registered Office, The Ruby, 10th Floor 29, Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (W)

Mumbai – 400 028

Branch Office at No.560-562, 1G 1st Floor Century Plaza, Anna Salai

Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018

Rep. by its Authorized Officer …Petitioner / Applicant to be substituted in place of State Bank of India

2. State Bank of India

Stressed Assets Recovery Branch

Red Cross Building, II Floor

No.32, Montieth Road, Egmore

Chennai – 600 008

Rep. by its Authorized Officer …Petitioner / Applicant Bank

Versus

1. Mr. S. Purusothaman

No.11, Pattinathar Koil Street

Thiruvottiyur

Chennai – 600 019

2. Mr. K. Karuppiah

No.36, Vetri Nagar, Ramaswamy Street

Perambur, Chennai – 600 011 …Respondents / Defendants

ORDERS ON MAINTAINABILITY

1. This case is placed before the Bench for hearing on the question of maintainability.

2. The objection of the Registry is: “Ld. Counsel for applicant / ARCIL ( to be substituted in the place of SBI) has filed this petition along with vakalath with prayer to modify order dated 25.01.2020 passed in MA 60/2019. Applicant is to be clarify. How this prayer is maintainable. Since, the order dated of this Tribunal 25/01/2020 is very clear and is a self speaking order. Petition is filed barred by limitation”

3. In reply, the applicant submitted that: “It is submitted the petitioner (ARCIL) sold the property. Account also settled to ARCIL company. Hence we filed the return of documents. Now only search the cost will be pending and doesnot arise limitation before this Hon’ble Tribunal. May pleased to allow the petition. Posted before PO for maintainability. For necessary orders”

4. Heard the Ld. Counsel for the applicant on the question of maintainability.

5. This application has been filed by the Petitioner seeking to modify the order dated 25.01.2020 passed in MA No.60 of 2019 and permit the applicant to deposit the costs as directed by this Tribunal.

6. It is stated in the application that the above OA No.264 of 2011 was filed by M/s State Bank of India before this Tribunal seeking issuance of recovery certificate for a sum of Rs.18,81,306.73p together with contractual interest. Subsequently, the defendants settled the loan account under OTS by offering a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- as full and final settlement and accordingly, the said OA was disposed by this Tribunal on 31.01.2013 as settled out of court. It is also stated that the petitioner (ARCIL) by virtue of the Assignment Agreement dated 11.02.2015 was assigned with the loan account along with underlying security. The OA No.264 of 2011 was transferred from DRT-I Chennai to this Tribunal and renumbered as TA Dy No.1465 of 2026. The Petitioner filed MA No.60 of 2019 seeking substitution in place of the erstwhile bank. The Tribunal by its order dated 25.01.2020 allowed the same subject to condition of the petitioner depositing Rs.5000/- i.e., Rs.3000/- to be deposited to the Library Account No.5751000002959, Punjab and Sind Bank, IBD Branch, Dewa Towers, Mount Road, Chennai-2 of the DRT & DRAT Bar Association, 6th Floor, Dewa Towers, Mount Road, Chennai-2 and Rs.2000/- to be deposited to the Library Account No.363422888, Central Bank of India, IFB Branch, Montieth Road, Chennai-8 of the Recovery Tribunal Advocates Association, 6th Floor, Dewa Towers, Mount Road, Chennai -2, failing which the petition would stand dismissed. Upon compliance the name of the applicant be substituted in place of the Original Applicant. It is submitted that due to inadvertence and administrative reasons, the applicant could not comply with the aforesaid condition within the time stipulated by this Tribunal. Hence that particular account will not operated. The non-compliance was neither willful nor wanton but occurred due to bonafide reasons and circumstances beyond the control of the concerned officials. It is further submitted that the applicant has all along been prosecuting the proceedings diligently and has no intention whatsoever to disregard the orders of this Tribunal. The failure to deposit the costs within the stipulated time was purely inadvertent and unintentional. Hence the order dated 25.01.2020 be modified and sufficient time be granted to comply with the condition imposed therein.

7. After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner and after perusing the records, the only point that arises for consideration is: -

“Whether the present application, filed after an inordinate and unexplained delay of nearly six years, seeking modification of the order dated 25.01.2020 and extension of time to comply with a condition specifically imposed therein, is maintainable in the absence of any satisfactory and bona fide explanation for such delay?”

8. It is not in dispute that the order sought to be modified was passed on 25.01.2020. The condition imposed therein was clear and unequivocal. The Applicant was required to deposit the prescribed costs as a condition for substitution. The Applicant admittedly did not comply with the said condition within the time granted by the Tribunal.

9. What is significant is that the Applicant has approached this Tribunal only after an inordinate lapse of nearly six years. Mere assertion that the non- compliance occurred due to “inadvertence and administrative reasons” cannot, by itself, constitute a sufficient explanation for such an extraordinary delay. No particulars have been placed before the Tribunal as to when the Applicant became aware of the alleged difficulty, what steps were taken during the intervening period, or why the Applicant remained inactive for such a prolonged period despite the specific condition contained in the order dated 25.01.2020.

10. Likewise, the statement that the concerned account was not being operated does not satisfactorily explain the failure to comply with the order. The Applicant has not produced any material to establish that the non-operation of the account made compliance impossible, nor has the Applicant established that any bona fide steps were taken contemporaneously to seek appropriate directions from the Tribunal.

11. The plea of bona fides, therefore, remains a mere assertion without supporting material. The burden was on the Applicant to satisfactorily explain the prolonged inaction and establish sufficient cause for approaching the Tribunal after such an inordinate period. The explanation furnished is vague, general and does not account for the entire period of delay.

12. It is also pertinent to note that the present application does not seek correction of any accidental slip, clerical error or ambiguity in the order dated 25.01.2020. The order is clear as to the condition imposed and the consequence of failure to comply with the same. What is sought, in substance, is to reopen the concluded order after several years and to revive the opportunity to comply with a condition which was required to be fulfilled within the stipulated period. Such a course cannot be permitted merely on the basis of a belated plea of inadvertence or administrative difficulty.

13. The subsequent submission that the account was settled, the property was sold, or that the documents were to be returned does not alter the position regarding compliance with the specific condition imposed by this Tribunal in the order dated 25.01.2020. Those circumstances do not furnish a satisfactory explanation for the Applicant's failure to approach the Tribunal within a reasonable period.

14. The Applicant has also failed to demonstrate any sufficient or compelling circumstance warranting interference with the order dated 25.01.2020 at this belated stage. The very purpose of prescribing a condition and a consequence for its non-compliance would be defeated if, after several years, the Applicant is permitted to seek extension of time without satisfactorily explaining the delay.

15. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the present application suffers from inordinate and unexplained delay. The Applicant has failed to establish bona fide reasons or sufficient cause for such delay. The application, in its present form, is therefore not maintainable and does not merit consideration on merits.

16. Accordingly, the following: -

ORDER

MA Dy No.940 of 2026 seeking modification of the order dated 25.01.2020 passed in MA No.60 of 2019 is dismissed as not maintainable on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay. No further extension of time is granted to comply with the condition imposed in the said order. Consequently, the objection raised by the Registry is sustained. 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 18th day of August, 2026)