Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
Manju T vs FEDERAL BANK on 30 June 2026
IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II, BANGALORE
Dated this 30th Day of June, 2026
PRESENT: SHRI T. RAJESH
Hon’ble Presiding Officer
M.A. No. 22 of 2024
BETWEEN:
Sri. Manju T
Aged about 49 years
S/o. Late Thimmaiah
Residing at No.2834, K-14/A,
2nd Cross, Chamundipuram,
K.R. Mohalla, Mysore-570004
. . . Applicant
AND:
1.
M/s. The Federal Bank Ltd.,
Mysore Branch
Rep. by its Senior Manager
Sri. Prasad P S
2. Ningaraju T
S/o. Late Thimmaiah
Since deceased rep. by his Lrs
R2(a) Manju
Aged about 21 years
R2(b) Thilak
Aged about 18 years
Both are resding at
No.124, Kolegala, H.D. kote Taluk,
Mysore District
. . . Respondents
Ld. Counsels on record / appeared
:-
Counsel for Applicant
:- Sri. Syed Ameer
Counsel for Respondent
:- M/s. V S Associates
MA/22/2024
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 to condone the delay of 132 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte final order passed by this Tribunal in OA.32/2017.
2. It is case of the petitioner that, the petitioner who is the 2nd defendant in the OA and wherein according to the petitioner the exparte final order came to be passed in the proceedings filed by the bank based on documents, which according to the petitioner it is a fabricated document. Even though, no specific averment has put forth in the affidavit in support of the application from the pleadings of the main petition to set aside the exparte. The applicant admits that, on 12.11.2023 that, a notice being affixed on the premises of the property attaches the same in connection with the Recovery Certificate. It is stated that, then only the petitioner came to know about the proceedings and exparte final order passed therein.
3. Since the prayer sought for in the petition is only to condone the delay of 132 days, this Tribunal is not adverting to the contention of the portioners whether as to the facts leading to circumstances where she was set exparte, no specific grounds have been raised in the petition to condone the delay. It is settled law that, each and everyday delay has to be explained properly to get the delay condoned, whereas the case in hand, the affidavit hardly says any reason for condonation of delay even for a day. However, in the ends of justice this Tribunal feels that, the circumstances
MA/22/2024
leading to petitioner remaining exparte is to be gone into and the technical reason like delay cannot stand in way of this Tribunal going by the facts of the case. However, taking note of the fact that, no sufficient reasons is made out to condone the delay, the delay is condoned on the cost of Rs.5,000/- out of which Rs.1,500/- to the counsel for the applicant bank and Rs.3,500/- to the Prime Ministers Relief fund, which is to be remitted in two weeks from today, subject to compliance of the above, the Registry to place the matter before the bench for the consideration of the prayer to set aside the exparte final order. (Dictated to the Stenographer (PR), after her transcription and necessary corrections, signed and Order passed on this 30th day of June 2026)
(T. RAJESH) PRESIDING OFFICER