Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
BANK OF BARODA vs RM ENTERPRISES on 4 January 2024
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL – III, CHENNAI
Dated this the 04th day of January, 2024
Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K.
Presiding Officer
MA No.185/23 in OASR No.1427/2023
(Edrt -Dy. No.215/2023)
Bank of Baroda
Kodambakkam Branch
Rep. by its Branch Manager
No.10, First Main Street
United India Colony, Chennai – 600 024
....Petitioner
-Vs-
1.
M/s R.M. Enterprises
Rep. by its Proprietor Mrs. Rosemary Lazer Ground Floor, Old No.114, New No.135
Pillair Koil Street
St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016
2.
Mrs. Rosemary
D/o Mr. Lazer
No.135, Vinayakar Kovil Street
Ambethkar Nagar
St. Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016
….Respondents
Counsel for Petitioner bank :
M/s J. Ramanathan
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.
O R D E R
1. This MA is filed by the Petitioner / Applicant Bank for condonation of delay of 212 days in re-presenting the Original Application after complying with the office objections.
2. It is the case of the petitioner / applicant bank that the objections with regard to capitalization of penal interest was duly contemplated to be complied upon and copy of OA was handed over to the then Manager for preparing the calculation, however due to annual transfers, the then Manager was transferred, due to which the calculations as sought for could not be obtained from applicant bank and re-presented within the time granted by this Tribunal. Hence, there was delay in processing the returns and the OA was re-presented with a delay of 212 days and petitioner bank prayed for condonation of the same.
3. On perusal of records, it is seen that this is an OA filed for recovery of a total sum of Rs.37,80,322.66p due in respect of Overdraft facility together with future interest at the rate of 14.65% p.a. with monthly rests from defendants. It is not explained anywhere in the petition as to how applicant bank will be entitled to claim interest at the contractual rate for the period of delay, which is owing to their inaction and not attributable to any action of the defendants. As the period of delay is on the high side, condonation of the same by levying formal amount in the form of costs payable either to the Library Fund or to any Charity organization as a measure of reprimand would not be justifiable when compared with the levy of interest burden on the defendants for the period of default on the part of the applicant bank for no fault of the borrower.
4. However, in the circumstances, this MA is allowed on the condition that the subject of levy of interest for the defaulted period (212 days), which is condoned at this stage of the OA proceedings, shall stand for consideration at the time of issuance of
Recovery Certificate by the progress of the case and the conduct of the case on behalf of the applicant bank till the stage of issuance of the recovery certificate. Registry is directed to put up a note accordingly for consideration of claim of interest for this default period at the time of drawing of the Recovery Certificate in case for an order thereto by the Tribunal.
5. Registry is directed to number the OA, if otherwise found to be in order. (Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, corrected, signed and processed through E-drt on this the 04th day of January, 2024)
Sd/-
(GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER