Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
STATE BANK OF INDIA vs Sri P Mariraj on 19 March 2026
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI
Dated this the 19th day of March, 2026
Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA
Presiding Officer
Misc. Application Nos. 38/26 & 39/26
in
TA No.59 of 2023
State Bank of India
SARB II, Chennai,
No.44, 1st Floor, Eldams Road,
Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018
Rep. by City Case Officer.
…Petitioner/ Applicant
-Vs-
Mr. P. Mariraj
S/o Sri. Paulraj,
No.19/2, Vivekanandar 1st Street,
VNR Complex, Gummidipoondi,
Chennai – 601 201.
…Respondent / Defendant
Counsels on record / appeared:
Counsel for Applicant
:
Mr. S. Vaidyanathan
: -ORDER ON MA NOs.38/26 & 39/26-:
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.
1. MA 38/26 is filed by applicant bank praying to condone delay of 897 days in filing restoration petition and MA 39/26 is filed to restore TA, which was dismissed for default on 27.06.2023.
2. The Original Application is filed by the Petitioner/Applicant Bank against the Defendant, seeking main relief to order the Defendant pay a sum of Rs.47,47,260/- (Rupees Forty Seven Lakhs Forty Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Only) together with future interest and costs.
3. The Applicant Bank has filed the present petitions i.e., MA No. 38/26 & 39/26 along with affidavit of Sh. Kailash Chandra Meena, Chief Manager of applicant bank submitting that the defendants availed Housing Loan of Rs.47,98,055/-, and had executed the loan documents. The immovable property belonging to the defendants, which was purchased out of the loan sanctioned by applicant bank was offered as security by the defendant. However, subsequent to availing of loan, the defendants were not regular in repayment and committed default. Consequently, the loan account as classified as NPA on 28.11.2016 and the applicant bank has filed the OA 358/2019 before DRT-II for recovery of outstanding amount due from the defendant. The OA was transferred to this Tribunal due to bifurcation of jurisdiction and re-numbered as TA No.59/2023.
4. It is further submitted that as the applicant bank did not take steps to file Proof Affidavit and documents, the TA came to be dismissed for default and non-prosecution on 27.06.2023. The mortgaged property was sold in E-auction under SARFAESI Act for an amount of Rs.29 lakhs on 14.09.2021 and the documents of title have since been handed over to the auction purchaser.
5. It is further submitted that after the sale of schedule property due to COVID -19 Pandemic, the case bundle was misplaced and the Advocate on record for applicant bank was appointed as Government Pleader. Some of his juniors who were pursuing the case, and failed to follow up the case.
Further, the officers of the applicant bank have been transferred from the services of the bank and hence Proof affidavit and documents could not be filed despite availing several adjournments, which resulted in unnoticing of the dismissal of the OA and hence delay of 897 days occurred, which is neither willful nor wanton but only due to aforesaid reasons. The case bundle has now been retrieved and entrusted to the present counsel for further prosecution. Hence the present application is filed to condone the delay of 897 days in filing petition to restore the OA.
Heard Ld. Counsel appearing for applicant and perused the records of the case.
6. The applicant, being a financial institution has filed the OA for recovery of a sum of Rs.47,47,260/- along with interest and for sale of mortgaged properties. After completion of service of summons, the defendants were placed ex-parte on 02.12.2021, subsequent to which, applicant bank had availed substantial number of adjournments upto June, 2023 for processing PA and OD. As applicant bank did not comply with the returns of the proof affidavit and documents, OA came to be dismissed for default and non-prosecution on 27.06.2023. During the pendency of the OA, the applicant bank had also sold the secured asset under SARFAESI Act and recovered a sum of Rs.29 lakhs.
7. In view of the fact that the applicant bank being a financial institution is the custodian of the public money held under trust, the Tribunal relying on the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madras (At Madurai) in the judgment of V.P. Rajula -Vs.- K.J. Sakadeva Raja reported in LAWS (MAD)-2020-8-441 feels it apt to condone the delay and restore the OA and give last opportunity to applicant to prosecute the case.
8. Accordingly, MAs 38/26 and 39/26 stands allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.3,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority on or before 15.04.2026 by the applicant and to file the compliance report before the Registry.
9. It is clarified that in case if the applicant bank fails to comply with the conditional order above, MAs stand dismissed automatically without there being any need to pass separate order.
(S.V. GOWRAMMA)
PRESIDING OFFICER, DRT-III, CHENNAI
(Dictated to Steno (Mogesh), transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 19th day of March, 2026)