Nagavalli vs CANARA BANK on 28 October 2024

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-III, CHENNAI

Dated this the 28th day of October, 2024

Present: SHRI A. S. JAYACHANDRA

Presiding Officer (In – charge)

M.A. No.215 of 2024

in

SA Dy. No.1203/2022

1.

Nagavalli

W/o Late Karunakaran

23, Bajanai Koil Street

Redhills, Chennai – 60 0052

2.

Hemanth

S/o Late Karunakaran

23, Bajanai Koil Street

Redhills, Chennai – 60 0052

3.

Sivaram

S/o Late Karunakaran

Minor – represented by his Mother

and natural guardian

23, Bajanai Koil Street

Redhills, Chennai – 60 0052

4.

Sampoornam

M/o Late Karunakaran

23, Bajanai Koil Street

Redhills, Chennai – 60 0052

….Petitioners

-Vs-

Canara Bank

Padianallur (Redhills) Branch

No.174, G.N.T. Road

Padianallur, Redhills – 600 052

….Respondnet

Counsels on record / appeared:

Counsel for Petitioners

:

M/s. R. Hashwanth

Counsel for Respondent

:

M/s. AGD Balakumar

:-ORDERS -:

1.

The applicants have filed the instant Miscellaneous Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation delay of 400 days in seeking restoration of the un-registered SA.

2.

The notices were ordered to the respondent.

3.

Heard.

4.

These applicants have filed one SA challenging the sale notice dated 20.09.2022 issued by the defendant bank. The Ld. Predecessor by an order dated 12.12.2022 had issued the notice with regard to maintainability concerning the limitation and cause of action. The copy of the sale notice was handed over by the defendant bank on 03.02.2023 and the bank had filed the counter and the supporting documents.

5.

On 02.06.2023, in the presence of both the parties, the Ld. Predecessor had dismissed the SA for default.

6.

After dismissal on 02.06.2023, the present applicants files this instant Miscellaneous Application on 07.08.2024, almost after a lapse of one year and two months.

7.

The reasons for delay in the supporting affidavit of the first applicant is perused. The proceedings of the un-numbered SA and the daily orders are reproduced. The affidavit also speaks of certain developments that took place on 17.08.2022. Such reproduction found in page 7 is not pertaining to the present case.

It pertains to SA 268/2022.

8.

The applicant contends that they succeeded in SA 268/2022 and since then they were approaching the bank, which the bank evaded to comply the request of the applicant for one time settlement. It is admitted that the sale notice dated 20.09.2022 was affixed and further contended that certain compliances were done consequent to the orders in SA 268/2022.

9.

It is contended that while filing the present un-numbered SA, the sale notice was not served and the proceedings of the present SA is pleaded at para 11 of the affidavit alleging that the respondent was delaying. In the circumstances, it is pleaded that the applicant was dejected and was put into immense trauma, therefore the delay of 400 days is sought to be condoned.

10.

The Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that it is because of this trauma, the delay occurred. Expect the pleading that the applicant suffered trauma, this Tribunal does not see any justifiable excuse or reason to seek condoning the delay of more than one year and two months. The aspect of trauma seems to be a lame excuse in view of the fact that the applicant diligently prosecuted the other SA 268/22 and succeeded thereon. Having succeeded in the earlier proceedings, it cannot be said that the applicants were not aware of the legal proceedings and the consequences thereof. Suffice to say except pleading about the earlier case, the delay is not properly explained from the date of dismissal i.e., 02.06.2023 till the filing of the application for setting aside the said order.

11.

The contention of the respondent bank that the applicants have slept over a period of 400 days. Though the Ld. Counsel for the bank had pointed out that the defaulted counter is already filed in the unregistered SA intimating that the E-auction sale consequent to the sale notice was successful and that a purchaser emerged, for

whom the sale certificate was also issued and that the surplus amount has been credited to the account of one Karunakran, the predecessor in interest of the present MA applicants, the same is superfluous for the purposes of deciding the aspect of condonation of delay.

12.

Consequently, the following order