Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 17 June 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd, represented by Branch Manager, Kancheepuram Branch.
  • Respondents: Everest Mineral Water (firm) and individuals Ranganathan S/o Sesha Pillai, M. Balaraman, and B. Nagamani.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Writ petition under Article 226 seeking a writ of certiorari and mandamus to obtain records of the DRAT order dated 26.03.2026 (I.A. No.1743 of 2025 in A.I.R. No.1411 of 2025) and to quash that order, with a request to condone a delay of 1,683 days in filing the appeal and to restore the appeal for merits.
  • Background: The bank had advanced a loan of Rs 12,75,538 to the first respondent/firm. Default led to the account being classified as an NPA. The bank initiated recovery before DRT‑III, Chennai (O.A.No.625 of 2014). DRT order dated 15.10.2020 allowed recovery of the principal amount but denied pendente lite and future interest, citing circumstances beyond respondents’ control.
  • Appeal Process: The bank appealed to the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Chennai (A.I.R.No.1411 of 2025) and filed an interlocutory application I.A.No.1743 of 2025 seeking condonation of the 1,683‑day delay. The bank attributed the delay to administrative processing, file movements, change of officials, and the death of its counsel on 28.05.2023.
  • DRAT Decision (26.03.2026): The DRAT dismissed the condonation application, noting that the delay was not sufficiently explained. Although the DRT order copy was supplied on 09.11.2020, the appeal was filed only after receipt of the copy on 22.05.2025. The counsel’s death was not accepted as a cause for the entire delay. The DRAT, however, granted liberty to the appellant to approach the DRT for appropriate action, including a claim of interest on the delayed payment of Rs 12,75,538.
  • Petitioner’s Argument: Counsel argued that the DRAT should adopt a liberal approach, emphasizing that public money is involved and that substantial justice should outweigh procedural technicalities.
  • Legal Precedent Cited: Supreme Court judgment in Baleshwar Dayal Jaiswal vs. Bank of India & Ors. confirming that under Section 18(2) of the SARFAESI Act (read with proviso to Section 20(3) of the RDB Act), the Appellate Tribunal may condone delay if sufficient cause is shown.

Final Outcome

  • The High Court observed that while the power to condone delay exists, it is discretionary and requires a satisfactory explanation of the delay. The explanation provided—administrative lag for nearly two and a half years before the counsel’s death and another two‑year gap after the death—was deemed insufficient and vague.
  • The Court noted that the DRAT had already provided an efficacious alternative remedy by allowing the bank to approach the DRT for interest on the delayed payment, ensuring the bank is not financially prejudiced.
  • Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed with no costs awarded to either party.

Topics: Debt Recovery, Delay Condonation, Judicial Review