STATE BANK OF INDIA vs Supriya Lalithkumar on 8 September 2026

1. MA No.138 of 2026 is taken up. This is an application filed by applicant bank for condonation of delay of 784 days in filing physical copy of 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.47,27,179/- (Rupees Forty Seven Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand One Hundred and Seventy Nine Only) from the Defendants in respect of the loan facilities availed under Housing Loan Account No.38580019767. The applicant submits that there has been a delay of 784 days in filing of the physical copy of O.A. The said delay occurred due to various unavoidable and bona fide reasons.

4. It is submitted that the OA was filed via online on 13.12.2023, the OA physical copy was filed by one of the former associate from the office on 29.01.2024 without filing any condone delay petition and also bundle was not assigned to any clerk nor affixed any received seal, due to that bundle was kept idol in the office without any movement, Later when the petitioner’s counsel made an enquiry about the status of OA, it was duly informed by the counter that the bundle was not available. This was put to great shock and surprise, immediately they rushed to the office and searched for a week we could not find the bundle again and made a request to the section clerk whether the bundle was available, at last they replied that bundle was available in office and informed that without filing condone delay petition it will not come in return register thereby contributing to the delay.

5. The applicant submits that the delay of 784 days was not an intentional one, during the relevant period, the Counsel’s office underwent a major administrative transition, including the complete shifting of the office premises, resulting in temporary disruption of record-keeping, communication, and administrative functioning, and replacement and re- indexing of record bundles, during which several case files were misplaced, mixed up, or remained inaccessible. Due to the above circumstances, it became necessary to reconstruct the file, retrieve earlier correspondence, and rectify earlier procedural requirements, resulting in substantial delay.

6. It is submitted that the delay in all the above instances was neither deliberate nor intentional. The delay occurred due to circumstances beyond the Applicant's control, including office shifting, temporary misplacement of files, and lack of continuity in legal representation. The Applicant has, at all material times, acted in good faith and with due diligence. It is further submitted that no prejudice has been caused to the Respondent on account of the said delay, and the re-presentation have now been duly complied with. Therefore, the applicant bank prayed for condonation of delay of 784 days in representing the OA.

Heard and perused the records of the case.

7. The present OA is filed by the applicant bank, claiming to have E-filed on 13.12.2023 vide Diary No.5405/2023 dated 13.12.2023, and has enclosed a receipt dated 13.12.2023. However, on verification of the receipt, it pertains only to the acknowledgement of payment of Court Fee and Vakalat Fee in a sum of Rs.50,005/- and not the E-filing receipt. The applicant bank has not enclosed the E-filing receipt, evidencing e-filing done on 13.12.2023. Further, the applicant bank has now come with an application in MA.No.138.2026 praying for condonation of delay of 784 days in filing the physical copy of the OA.

8. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the Applicant Bank, at paragraph 4, had stated that the OA was filed online on 13.12.2023 and that the physical copy of the OA was filed by one of its former associates from the office on 29.01.2024, without filing any application for condonation of delay. It is therefore evident from the Applicant Bank’s own averment that the physical copy of the OA was presented only on 29.01.2024. The Applicant Bank has further stated that the bundle was not assigned to any clerk and that no “received” seal was affixed thereon. According to the Applicant Bank, on account of the same, the bundle remained idle in the office without any movement. The Applicant Bank has also alleged that, upon subsequent enquiry, it was informed by the Registry that the bundle was not available, pursuant to which the Applicant Bank claims to have conducted a further search in its office.

9. The aforesaid explanation, even if taken at its face value, does not satisfactorily explain the inordinate delay of 784 days, now sought to be condoned. The Applicant Bank’s own version discloses serious lapses in the handling, custody and follow-up of the proceedings. The alleged failure to assign the bundle to a clerk, affix a received seal, or ensure its proper movement cannot constitute sufficient cause for such an inordinate delay, particularly when the Petitioner is a banking institution expected to maintain proper records and exercise due diligence in relation to litigation entrusted to it. Administrative or internal lapses in the office of the Applicant Bank cannot, by themselves, constitute sufficient explanation for an inordinate period of delay.

10. Furthermore, the above allegations by the applicant bank is contradictory to the dates and events of the present case. On verification of the E-DRT portal, where the Registry of this Tribunal can view the scanned copy of the documents filed by the parties, it is evident that there is no such e-filing claimed to have done on 13.12.2023, which is also evidently not supported by any e-filing receipt by the applicant bank.

11. Secondly, the scanned copy in the EDRT portal shows at the first serial number - the date of documents uploaded on 09.02.2026 at 15:58:23

- the copy of OA along with the documents containing 92 pages, and the second serial number is uploaded on 09.02.2026 at 15:26:35 which is the condone delay petition filed by the applicant bank, which are as follows: SI. No Doc. Filing No. Document Name Doc. Upload Date Filed by

OA 09/02/2026 15:58:23 Applicant

2. IA/389/2026 Condone Delay 09/02/2026 15:26:35 Applicant

Therefore, the claim of applicant bank that the OA was E-filed online on 13.12.2023 and the physical copy was filed on 29.01.2024 are without any documentary proof and hence, both the dates cannot be taken as the date of E-filing / physical filing of the OA.

12. Further, the petitioner has sought condonation of the delay of 784 days, contending that the delay was neither wilful nor intentional. It is submitted that during the relevant period, the office of the Counsel underwent shifting and administrative transition, resulting in disruption and reorganisation of records, due to which certain case files and correspondence became temporarily inaccessible. The Applicant states that time was consequently required for reconstruction of the relevant records and completion of the necessary procedural formalities, resulting in the delay. However, the explanation furnished by the Applicant for the delay does not appear to be consistent with the explanation stated in the preceding paragraph. In the earlier submission, the Applicant attributed the delay to the shifting and administrative transition of the Counsel’s office, resulting in disruption and reorganisation of records and the consequent need to reconstruct the relevant file. On the other hand, the Applicant has now stated that the O.A. had already been filed online on 13.12.2023 and that the physical bundle was filed on 29.01.2024, but remained unattended for want of a condone-delay petition and was subsequently stated to have been untraceable in the office.

13. These two explanations, namely, the reorganisation of records on account of shifting of the Counsel’s office and the alleged non-processing of the physical bundle for want of a condone-delay petition, have not been satisfactorily reconciled by the Applicant. The Applicant has also not furnished a cogent explanation as to why the condone-delay petition was not filed along with the physical bundle or why appropriate steps were not taken immediately thereafter to ascertain and regularise the status of the O.A.

14. The applicant bank, being a financial institution is the custodian of the public money held under trust and is duty bound to assist the Tribunal in speedy disposal of the cases. It is also relevant to note that Section 19(24) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 mandates that the application shall be dealt with as expeditiously as possible and an endeavour shall be made to finally dispose of the application within a period of 180 days from the date of receipt of the application.

15. The Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, Vide Gazetted Notification dated 31.01.2023, notified that the E-filing of pleadings by applicants is mandatory and any other form of filing shall not be taken on record.

16. It is settled law that while considering an application for condonation of delay, the Tribunal is required to examine whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause for not approaching the Tribunal within the prescribed period. The length of delay alone is not a ground to reject the application, however, the applicant must furnish a satisfactory and bonafide explanation covering the material period of delay and demonstrate due diligence in pursuing the proceedings. However, in the instant case, the applicant bank had filed affidavit stating that that OA was E-filed on 13.12.2023 and physically filed on 29.01.2024, which is contrary to the E- filing report, which is done on 09.02.2026 only.

17. Hence, the question of condoning the delay of 784 days in filing the physical copy of the OA does not arise, since the Applicant Bank has failed to establish that the OA itself was duly filed E-filed on 13.12.2023 as claimed by it.

18. In view of the above, MA No.138/2026 stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

Sd/-

(S.V. GOWRAMMA)

PRESIDING OFFICER,

DRT-III, CHENNAI (Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 08th day of September, 2026)