Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
SMT PURNIMA vs MS MANVI PATTANA SOUHARDHA SAHAKARI BANK LTD on 2 September 2026
P a g e 1 | 2
IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI
Dated the 2nd day of September, 2026
PRESENT: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN
CHAIRPERSON
IA 1706 of 2025 (Waiver) in AIR 2309 of 2025
(arising out of SA Dy No.2012 of 2025 on the file of DRT-I, Karnataka at Bengaluru)
Between
Smt. Purnima,
W/o. Sri. Nataraj Shet,
R/at Gangavathi,
Koppal District – 584 123
Now residing at
Near Muru Katte, Kumata,
Karwar District – 581 343
… Appellant
And
1.
The Authorised Officer,
M/s. Manvi Pattana Souhardha,
Sahakari Bank Niyamita,
Sri Aparna Chitra Mandira Complex,
Main Road, Manvi,
Raichur District – 584 123
Branch Office at
Gangavathi,
Vaddara Oni, Bus-Stand Road,
Gangavathi,
Koppal District – 583 227
2.
Sri. Prakash Raikar,
S/o. Sri. Gokuldas Raikar,
Aged Major
Residing at
Ward No. 08, Prashant Nagar,
Koppal Road, Gangavathi,
Gangavathi Taluk
Koppal District – 583 227
3.
Sri. Raghavendra,
S/o Sri Gokuldas Raikar,
Aged Major,
Residing at
Ward No. 08, Prashant Nagar,
Koppal Road, Gangavathi,
Gangavathi Taluk
Koppal District – 583 227
Respondents 2 & 3 remained ex parte
Counsel for Appellant:
M/s. Kavitha Devarajan
Counsel for 1st Respondent:
M/s. T.S. Rajeev Gandhi
P a g e 2 | 2
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
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
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant and 1st Respondent Bank are present.
2. Respondents 2 and 3 are called absent and set ex parte vide order dated 23.12.2025.
3. This appeal is pending from the year 2025 for deciding on the waiver application. When the matter was taken up on 21.4.2026, there was no representation for the Petitioner. It was made clear that failing to argue the waiver application would result in dismissal of the waiver application and rejection of the appeal, and the matter got adjourned to 22.5.2026.
4. When the matter was taken up on 31.7.2026, again there was no representation for the Petitioner. It was adjourned to 20.8.2026, as a last chance, with a warning that failing to appear on the next date of hearing would result in passing consequential orders in the waiver application.
5. When the matter is taken up today, Learned Counsel, representing Learned Counsel on record for the Petitioner, submitted that she is not ready today to argue the waiver application, and seeks two-weeks time. Already, sufficient time has been given. Despite that, Petitioner is not ready.
6. Therefore, waiver application IA 1706 of 2025 is dismissed for non- prosecution, and appeal AIR No. 2309 of 2025 is rejected, with the cost of the Respondent.
7. Pending IAs, if any, stand closed.
Sd/- (JUSTICE G. CHANDRASEKHARAN) CHAIRPERSON