Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
KARUR VYSYA BANK vs Mohamed Mustafa on 14 August 2026
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.212 of 2026 in OA Dy.No.2146 of 2024
Karur Vysya Bank Limited,
Rep by its Authorised officer/Chief Manager, Asset recovery Branch, 2nd floor, No.1, Padmavathiyar Road, (Off Peters road), Gopalapuram, Chennai- 600 086
...Applicant
-Vs-
Mr.A.Mohamed Mustafa,
S/o Mr. Abbas,
No.6/17, Dr. Govindan Road,
West Mambalam,
Chennai- 600 033
…Defendant
Counsels on record / appeared:
Counsel for Applicant
: M/s. A.Ilangovan
ORDER IN MA No.212/2026
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.212 of 2026 is taken up. This is an application filed by applicant bank for condonation of delay of 478 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.60,81,291.26/- (Rupees Sixty Lakhs Eighty One thousand Two Hundred and Ninety One and Twenty Six paise only) together with interest and costs. It is submitted that the OA was returned by the Registry for compliance of objections. The OA along with case bundle was inadvertently mixed up with other office bundle in the counsel’s office, which could be traced out only at a later point of 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 478 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.212/26 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)