Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
BANK OF INDIA vs CERT TECHNOLOGIES on 7 August 2026
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI
Dated this the 07th day of August 2026
Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA
Presiding Officer
M.A. No.134 of 2026 in OA Dy.No.3433 of 2023
Bank of India,
Rep by its Senior Branch Manager,
Adyar Branch,
Nos. 68 & 39, Teachers colony,
3rd cross street, Kasturba Nagar,
Adyar, Chennai- 600020
...Applicant
-Vs-
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. M/s CERT Technologies,
Rep by its Proprietor S. Balaguru,
90/342, Arcot road, Vijaya complex,
2nd floor, Kodambakkam,
Chennai- 600024
2. S.Balaguru,
S/o Sivagurunathan,
8/18, 3rd street, Sakthi flats,
Gopalapuram, Chennai- 600086
…Defendants
Counsels on record / appeared:
Counsel for Applicant : M/s. R. Sriram
ORDER IN MA No.134/2026
1. MA No.134 of 2026 is taken up. This is an application filed by applicant bank for condonation of delay of 1036 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.38,51,703/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Lakhs Fifty One Thousand Seven Hundred And Three only) together with interest and costs. It is submitted that the OA file was returned on 23.06.2023 by the Registry for compliance of returns. As settlement talks were going on between applicant and the defendant, which could not fructify later. However, the same was not communicated to the counsel on record. Thereafter, the applicant bank had contacted the counsel, who filed condone delay petition. On enquiry with the Registry, the condone delay petition was not available in the bundle, which was traced out at a later point time. 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 1036 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.134/26 stands allowed and delay is condoned, subject to payment of cost of Rs.3,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal
Services Authority on or before 04.09.2026 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 stands dismissed automatically without there being any need to pass separate order.
Sd/-
(S.V. GOWRAMMA)
PRESIDING OFFICER,
DRT-III, CHENNAI (Dictated to Roshnee, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 07th day of August, 2026)