Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
CANARA BANK vs M/S SS TECH on 8 April 2024
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI
Dated this the 08th day of April, 2024
Present: Shri Ganapathi K.R.K.
Presiding Officer
T.M.A No.05 of 2024 in OA Dy. No.86/2022
M/s. Canara Bank,
Rep by its Manager,
Guindy Branch
TANSTIA building Industrial Estate,
Guindy, Chennai-600 032.
….Applicant
-Vs-
1.
M/s. SS Tech,
Rep by its Prop. of K.S. Durai
Plot No.4, RK. Nagar Main Road,
Annai Terasa Nagar,
Kundrathur,
Chennai-600 069
And Also @:-
No.5, Kannadasan Street,
Ekkattuthangal
Chennai-600 032
And also @:-
No.12-B/7, Vishalakshmi Nagar
1st Cross Street,
Ekkattuthangal,
Chennai-600 032.
2. K.S. Durai,
S/o. K. Subramani,
No.191, Subam Nagar,
Phase-II, Old Pallavaram,
Chennai-600 117
And also @:-
No.35, Burma Thamizhar Colony,
1st Street, Alandur,
Chennai- 600 016.
And also @:-
No.3, Vasantham Nagar,
Thirumudivakkam,
Chennai-600 044.
And also @:-
No.61/4, Kanniamman Koil Street,
Madipakkam,
Chennai-600 091.
…Defendants
Counsels on record / appeared:
Counsel for Applicant
:
M/s. M. Maruthu Pandian
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.
ORDER
1. This MA is filed by the Petitioner / Applicant Bank for condonation of delay of 60 days in re-presenting the Original Application after complying with the office objections.
2. It is the case of petitioner applicant bank that the defects were duly contemplated to be complied upon, but however as there was delay in receiving some documents from bank which are to be attached with OA, it could not be re-presented within the time granted by this Tribunal, which is neither wilful nor wanton. Hence petitioner bank prayed for condonation of delay of 60 days in re-presenting the OA.
3. On perusal of records, it is seen that this is an OA filed for recovery of sum of Rs.24,68,853.41p together with future interest from the 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 (99 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, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 08th day of April, 2024)
Sd/- (GANAPATHI K.R.K) PRESIDING OFFICER