Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
FEDERAL BANK vs SAKTHI on 24 July 2026
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI
Dated this the 24th day of July 2026
Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA
Presiding Officer
M.A. No.167 of 2026 in OA Dy.No.3350/2025
The Federal Bank Ltd,
Represented by its Associate Vice President, Chennai- Mogappair Branch, No.5/450, Ground floor, Pari Salai, Mogappair east, Mogappair, Chennai- 600 037
...Applicant
-Vs-
Mr. Sakthi,
S/o Mr. Velayudam,
No.6/15 G1, 26th street,
GKM Colony, Jawahar Nagar,
Chennai- 600 082
…Defendant
Counsels on record / appeared:
Counsel for Applicant
: M/s. David Tyagaraj
ORDER IN MA No.167/2026
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 No.167 of 2026 is taken up. This is an application filed by applicant bank for condonation of delay of 138 days in re-presenting the OA.
2. Perused the Affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicant bank.
3. It is submitted by applicant bank that the present OA was filed for recovery of sum of Rs.21,36,934/- together with interest and costs. It is submitted that the OA was returned by the Registry on 28.11.2025 for compliance of objections. The counsel was not aware that the said return and he came to know about this only on 08.05.2026. Hence OA could not be re-presented within the time granted by this Tribunal, which is neither wilful nor wanton, but only due to aforesaid reasons. Therefore, the applicant bank prayed for condonation of delay of 138 days in representing the OA. Perused the Affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicant bank and the records of the case.
4. As OA is filed for recovery of money due from borrower and in view of the fact that the 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 give opportunity to applicant to prosecute their case.
5. Accordingly, MA No.167/26 stands allowed and delay is condoned, subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority on or before 14.08.2026 by the applicant and to file the compliance report before the Registry.
6. In case of the applicant complying with the order and filing compliance memo, Registry is directed to number the OA, if otherwise found to be in order. It is clarified that in case if the applicant bank fails to comply with the conditional order above, MA stand dismissed automatically without there being any need to pass separate order.
Sd/-
(S.V. GOWRAMMA)
PRESIDING OFFICER,
DRT-III, CHENNAI (Dictated to Roshnee, typed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 24th day of July, 2026)