KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED vs VIMALA ASSOCIATES on 14 August 2026

1. M/s Vimala Associates,

Rep by its Proprietor Mr.A.Anand,

Flat 1D, Block No.2, Old No.6, New No.1, Ceebros Park, Radhakrishnan salai, Valasaravakkam, Chennai- 600087

2. Mr.A. Anand,

S/o Mr. Arunachalam,

Flat 1D, Block No.2, Old No.6, New No.1, Ceebros Park, Radhakrishnan salai, Valasaravakkam, Chennai- 600087

3. Mrs. Sangeetha,

W/o A. Anand,

Flat 1D, Block No.2, Old No.6, New No.1, Ceebros Park, Radhakrishnan salai, Valasaravakkam, Chennai- 600087

…Defendants

Counsels on record / appeared:

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. R.Thirumalai ORDER IN MA No.211/2026

1. MA No.211 of 2026 is taken up. This is an application filed by applicant bank for condonation of delay of 173 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.98,42,648.13/- (Rupees Ninety Eight Lakhs Forty Two Thousand Six hundred and Forty Eight and Thirteen paise only) together with interest and costs. It is submitted that the OA was returned by the Registry for compliance of objections. The Asset Recovery Management Branch has tried to trace the property in the name of the defendants to secure the balance amount from them. Further, the parties were negotiating for amicable settlement, which could not fructify at a later point of time and the defendants also did not furnish the property details, which resulted in delay in re-presentation. 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 173 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.211/26 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 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 14th day of August, 2026)