Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals

CANARA BANK vs M s Parijatham Agencies on 14 August 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

Dated this the 14th day of August 2026

Present: SMT. S.V. GOWRAMMA

Presiding Officer

M.A. No.178 of 2026 in OA Dy.No.1361 of 2022

Canara Bank,

Rep by its Branch Manager

Muthialpet Branch,

#45, NSC Bose Road,

Pondicherry 605 001

...Applicant

-Vs-

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

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…

1. M/s Parijatham Agencies,

Rep by its Prop: V.Soundarajan,

S/o Mr.Vaithianathan,

#34, 1st cross street, Thirumal nagar,

Puducherry 605 001

2. Mr.V.Soundarajan,

S/o Mr.Vaithianathan,

#08, Rajeshwari street,

Thamizhthai Nagar,

Puducherry 605 001

…Defendants

Counsels on record / appeared:

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. K.Anbarasan

ORDER IN MA No.178/2026

1. MA No.178 of 2026 is taken up. This is an application filed by applicant bank for condonation of delay of 763 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.38,60,465.96p (Rupees Thirty Eight Lakhs Sixty thousand Four hundred and Sixty Five and Ninety Six paise only) together with interest and costs. It is submitted that the OA was returned by the Registry for few corrections. The erstwhile counsel had taken back the bundle from the Registry but failed to handover to the concerned branch, subsequently he fell sick and could not trace the bundle. 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 763 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.178/26 stands allowed and delay is condoned, subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority on or before 11.09.2026 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 stand 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 14thday of August, 2026)

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead