No Court Can Condon Delay In DRT Written Statements Beyond 45 Days: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has ruled that delay beyond the maximum 45-day period for filing a written statement before a Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under Section 19(5)(i) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act) cannot be condoned.
“The delay beyond the maximum period 45 days prescribed under Section 19(5)(i) of the RDBA Act cannot be condoned by any Court,” a Division Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Renu Bhatnagar observed while dismissing a petition filed by borrower Nikhil Poddar in recovery proceedings initiated by Punjab National Bank.
The petition challenged a July 1, 2026 order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), which refused to take Poddar's written statement on record after finding that it had been filed beyond the statutory period.
Poddar's counsel received the complete paper book in the recovery proceedings on September 6, 2019. Under Section 19(5)(i), a written statement is to be filed within 30 days of service of summons. The Presiding Officer can extend the period by a further 15 days in exceptional cases and for special circumstances recorded in writing.
The written statement was filed on November 26, 2019.
The issue before the court was whether the delay beyond the maximum 45-day period could nevertheless be condoned by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Bench held that it could not.
The court treated the RDB Act as a special code with its own statutory timeline. It held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act could not be invoked to extend the period beyond the 45-day outer limit prescribed under Section 19(5)(i).
The Bench referred to Supreme Court decisions including J.J. Merchant v. Shrinath Chaturvedi, Union of India v. Popular Construction Co., Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise v. Hongo India Private Limited.
It also considered Druggists Association v. Kalyan Chowdhury and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hili Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. while examining whether a statutory time limit could be extended beyond the period expressly permitted by the legislation.
The Bench also relied on the Delhi High Court's earlier ruling in Anita Garg v. State Bank of India. It noted that the words “not exceeding fifteen days” in Section 19(5)(i) restrict the DRT's discretion to extend the time for filing a written statement.
Poddar had argued that the period should be calculated from a later date because of an alleged delay in supplying the paper book. The court rejected the contention after finding that the complete paper book had been received by his counsel on September 6, 2019.
Based on that date, the maximum 45-day period expired on October 21, 2019.
The written statement, filed on November 26, 2019, was therefore beyond the period that could be condoned.
The court dismissed the writ petition.
On the contrary, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Shri Ram Gupta & Ors. v. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, held that the provisions of Section 19(5) of the RDB Act prescribing the time for filing a written statement are directory in nature and not mandatory, and that DRTs cannot mechanically strike off the defence or proceed ex parte.
Similarly, the Telangana High Court in B. Anand & Ors. v. M/s The Agrasen Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, held that a communication gap between the defendants and their counsel does not constitute an exceptional case or special circumstance warranting extension of the statutory time for filing a written statement
For Respondent: Advocates Brijesh K Tamber, Chanchala Kumari and Vinay Singh Bist