Delhi High Court Condones Late Filing By Avantha Holdings, Applies “Parity” Against Bank's Own Delay

The Delhi High Court on 12 February condoned a 14-day delay by Avantha Holdings Limited in filing its written statement in recovery proceedings, holding that procedural fairness requires parity when the creditor bank itself delayed service of summons by nearly a month.

A Division Bench of Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Renu Bhatnagar allowed a writ petition filed by Avantha Holdings against ICICI Bank Limited, observing that a tribunal cannot ignore substantial delay by one party while strictly enforcing timelines against the other.

The Court held that fairness requires that “similar conduct not be judged by different standard,” and added that the "principle of parity precludes adoption of a stricter standard against the petitioner for a shorter delay.”

ICICI Bank had initiated proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Delhi, seeking recovery of Rs. 558.60 crore from Avantha Holdings and its subsidiaries in relation to defaults under a USD 50 million Letter of Credit facility.

On 19 March 2024, the Tribunal issued summons, directing the bank to collect them the next working day and serve them promptly to enable the defendants to avail the statutory 30-day period to file their written statement.

However, the bank dispatched the summons by speed post only on 6 April 2024 and ultimately served the complete paperbook via email on 17 April 2024, nearly a month later. Avantha Holdings filed its written statement on 31 May 2024, resulting in a delay of 14 days beyond the statutory period.

The DRT rejected the application for condonation of delay, and the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), Kolkata, upheld the dismissal on 16 December 2025, holding that no “exceptional case” or “special circumstances” were made out under Section 19(5)(i) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993.

The High Court noted that the bank had taken around 28 days to effect service despite directions for prompt compliance, whereas the petitioner's delay was only 14 days. The Bench held that the bank had enjoyed “a far longer period in complying with the DRT's directions” without facing any adverse consequences. It observed that differential treatment of delays would create procedural imbalance, stating:

“If substantial delay on the part of one party is overlooked without any adverse consequence, while a shorter delay by the other is treated strictly, it creates an imbalance which must be avoided.”

Emphasising the principle of parity, the Court added:

“If nearly a month's delay on one side did not attract adverse consequence, the petitioner's delay of 14 days cannot be placed in a more disadvantageous position.”

The Court further held that the latitude granted to the bank constituted a “special circumstance” under the proviso to Section 19(5)(i), warranting condonation of Avantha Holdings' delay.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the DRAT order, condoned the delay in filing the written statement, and directed that the written statement be treated as duly filed in the recovery proceedings.

For Petitioner: Advocates Sandeep Bajaj, Shruti Kanodia, Rishabh Dua, Kshitij Ujala and Maya Bihani.

For Respondent: Senior Advocate Sanjiv Kakra, With Advocates Bhamsen Jain and Akash