Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
HDFC BANK vs THE REGISTRAR DRT IIII CHENNAI on 27 October 2026
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.
IN THE DEBT RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI
A.IR:2029/2026
HDFC Bank Ltd V/S The Registrar, DRT-3, Chennai & 5 ors 27/10/2026
Learned Counsel for Appellant Bank is present.
AIR 2029 of 2026 is filed against the return made by R1 to R3 in OA Dy No. 12983 of 2022 and direct R1 to R3 to place the Original Application before the Learned Presiding Officer, DRT-III, Chennai.
It is the submission of the Learned Counsel for Appellant Bank that the Original Application has been filed for recovery of the debt due against the Defendants. DRT-III, Chennai Registry has made a series of piece-meal returns of the Original Application. When there was a delay in representation, applications have been filed for condonation of delay. Ultimately, DRT-III, Chennai Registry directed the Appellant Bank to file a consolidated delay application for condoning the delay of 497 days in representing the Original Application. That cannot be done for the reason that the delay in each occasion was for a different reason. Despite the direction to place the matter before the Registrar Court, DRT-III, Chennai for declination, it was not placed so far. Explanation of the Appellant Bank was not placed and considered.
This Tribunal, on going through the records, finds that piece-meal returns have been made while scrutinizing the Original Application. It is a settled proposition of law that if the plaint, application or petition has some defects, the return must be a comprehensive and consolidated return. Piece-meal returns of the plaint, application or petition is deprecated by the Hon’ble High Courts.
Therefore, call for remarks from R1 to R3 as to why multiple piece-meal returns are made, and why the Learned Registrar, DRT-III, Chennai has not passed any orders on the compliance of return by the Appellant Bank. Registry is directed to communicate to the Respondents, the relevant papers i.e, pages 39 to 47, and pages 66 to 67, to facilitate the submission of remarks by the Respondents.
Learned Counsel for Appellant Bank does not press for any relief against R4 to R6, and therefore, no notice is required to be served on R4 to R6.
Call on 3.11.2026. .
Sd/-
Chairperson