SOUTH INDIAN BANK vs S KANCHANA on 16 September 2026

1. Mrs.S.kanchana W/o Mr.J.Selavarajan, No.2, Karpaga Pillaiyar Kovil Street, 4th Division, Kancheepuram- 631 502.

Also at No.10/1, Sirukulathur, Uthiramerur, Kancheepuram - 603 406.

2. Mr.S.Gokulan, S/o. Mr.J.Selvarajan, No.3/2, Karpaga Pillaiyar Kovil Street, 4th Division, Kancheepuram- 631 502.

Also at No.10/1, Sirukulathur, Uthiramerur, Kancheepuram - 603 406.

3. Ms.S.Karthika D/o.Mr.J.Selvarajan, No.3/2, Karpaga Pillaiyar Kovil Street, 4th Division, Kancheepuram- 631 502.

Also at No.10/1, Sirukulathur, Uthiramerur, Kancheepuram - 603 406

….Respondents / Defendants

Counsels on record / appeared:

Counsel for Applicant : M/s. M.L. Ganesh

ORDER IN MA No. 215/2026

1. MA No.215 of 2026 is taken up. This is an application filed by applicant bank for condonation of delay of 369 days in re-presenting the OA.

2. Perused the Affidavit filed by the junior counsel for the counsel on record for the Applicant bank.

3. It is submitted that subsequent to the availing of aforesaid credit facilities, the Defendants have not remitted the loan amount in terms of the sanction letter and loan security documents. Consequently, the loan accounts were running irregular for want of servicing of principal and interest and finally slipped into NPA. Hence the Applicant Bank is constrained to file the above O.A along with the interim applications to recover the outstanding loan amount being the public money.

4. It is further submitted that the aforesaid OA was returned for curing certain defects. As the counsel for the petitioner had misplaced the bundle during the renovation work occurred, OA could not be re-presented within the time granted by the Tribunal. Hence the delay of 369 days has occurred, which is neither wilful nor wanton. Therefore, the petitioner prayed for allowing the MA and further submitted that if this delay in representation petition not allowed, the applicant bank will be put to irreparable loss and hardship, on the contrary, no prejudice or hardship will be caused to the respondents/defendants.

Heard and perused the records of the case.

7. The present OA is filed by the applicant bank for recovery of a sum of Rs.51,36,138.59p on 30.09.2023 vide Diary No.13677/2023. On scrutiny of the OA, the Registry had returned the OA for the first time on 29.11.2023 granting four weeks time, with the following defects:

(i) To attach duly filled in check list

(ii) To affix stamp in Vakalat

(iii) In summons – In the place of “Hon’ble Presiding Officer” to be incorporated as “Learned Registrar”

(iv) At No.12 – (iv) – The reply to be as “Evidence Affidavit is filed”

8. However, the applicant bank had re-presented the OA only on 01.10.2024. After further scrutiny, the OA was again returned for the second time on 16.03.2026 observing that there is a delay of 277 days in re-presentation and two weeks time for compliance was granted. The applicant bank had once again re-presented the OA only on 02.07.2026 along with MA for condonation of delay of 369 days in re-presenting the OA, which was scrutinised on the same day by the Registry and the application for condonation of delay was numbered as MA No.215/2026.

9. The affidavit has been filed by the Junior Counsel appearing for the Applicant Bank and has failed to satisfactorily and diligently explain the delay for each period. From the records, it is evident that the first return made by the Registry involved only minor defects, which could have been rectified without much difficulty. Despite this, the Applicant Bank took a substantial period of 277 days to re-present the OA, and the said delay has not been properly or satisfactorily explained. Further, even after the second return, the Applicant Bank again took 92 days to re-present the OA. Thus, the total delay amounts to 369 days, which remains unexplained and constitutes a substantial delay warranting due consideration by this Tribunal.

10. Further the delay cannot be condoned on equitable grounds and the Tribunal places reliance on the Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled Lingeswaran Vs. Thirunagalingam, where it is observed that an application for condonation of delay has to be dismissed if it is found that the delay is not properly explained and that the period of limitation cannot be extended on equitable ground. Otherwise, it would be giving a premium to a person who fails to explain the delay and who is guilty of delay and laches. The court also observed "The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same.

11. The Hon’ble Apex Court also noted the following observations made in Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, (2012) 5 SCC 157, while dismissing the SLP:

"The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The limitation Act, 1963 has not been enacted with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they approach the court for vindication of their rights without unreasonable delay. The idea underlying the concept of limitation is that every remedy should remain alive only till the expiry of the period fixed by the legislature. At the same time, the courts are empowered to condone the delay provided that sufficient cause is shown by the applicant for not availing the remedy within the prescribed period of limitation."

12. It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party, but it must be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Tribunal has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds and has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation as per the Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of P.K. Ramachandran vs. State of Kerala, reported in (1997) 7 SCC 556, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held thus:- "Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds". Hence, the legal maxim “dura lex sed lex” which means “the law is hard but it is the law”, stands attracted in such a situation.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. The scrutiny of OA after re-presentation cannot be cited as a reason for the delay. Further, the Tribunal is mindful of the fact that the applicant, being financial institution is expected to strictly adhere to the prescribed filing procedures and take necessary steps to safeguard the interest of the financial institution. However, in the instant matter, though the office objections raised were very meagre, which the counsel could have complied within a week’s time. Further, the office objections raised did not even require to get any instructions from the banks / financial institutions for the purpose of numbering the OA.

16. When the applicant bank re-presented the OA for the second time, the Registry, upon scrutiny found that there had already been a delay of 227 days. Despite the same, the applicant bank continued the delay and re-presented the OA with further delay for the third time, resulting in a total delay of 369 days. Therefore, the question of condonation of delay of 369 days in re-presenting the OA does not merit consideration, particularly when the Applicant Bank has failed to offer any sufficient, satisfactory, or cogent explanation for the said delay.

18. In view of the above, MA No.251/2026 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 16th day of September, 2026)