The Tribunal allowed the appeal and condoned the appellants' 66-day delay in filing the written statement, directing the DRT to accept it upon the appellants paying Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent counsel as costs.
The delay in filing the written statement was condoned; the appellants are directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent counsel.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI
Misc. Appeal No. 209/2022 Arising out of O.A. No. 229/2021 (DRT-III, Delhi)
M/s Need Telecommunications & Anr. Vs HDFC Bank Ltd.
25.11.2022 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Sethi
Present : Mr. Pulkit Deora, Ld. counsel for appellants
Mr. Ronnie S. Brara, Ld. counsel for respondent bank
This matter has been taken up by me through Video conferencing.
Mr. Ronnie S. Brara, Ld. counsel has appeared on behalf of the respondent bank today.
The instant appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 04.08.2022 passed by the learned DRT, dismissing the I.A. of the appellants for condonation of the delay in filing the written statement. Learned counsel for the appellants states that there was a delay of 66 days in filing the written statement which was caused due to non-annexing of relevant documents including original facility agreement vide which the credit facility was granted for the first time, and due to the reason that the O.A. contained documents which were frivolous and forged as the same were neither delivered to the appellants no were signed by them. Learned counsel further states that the appellants had to undertake extensive search for the documents missing in the O.A. and filed the written statement thereafter, which caused the delay.
The learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the above contentions of the appellants and states that the plea taken by the appellants is false. According to him, all the necessary documents were duly placed on record in the O.A.
Without going into the controversy / dispute regarding availability of the documents and authenticity thereof, this Tribunal is of the view that the O.A. should be decided on merit and the delay of 66 days in filing the written statement should be condoned in the interest of justice by compensating the opposite party with costs. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the learned DRT is directed to take the written statement of the appellants on record subject
-: 2 :-
to appellants’ paying a cost of Rs.50,000/- to Mr. Ronnie S. Brara, learned counsel who has appeared today on behalf of the respondent bank.
With the above direction, the appeal stands disposed of.
File be consigned to record.
( CHAIRPERSON )
-pk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay of 66 days in filing the written statement may be condoned in the interest of justice.
Whether the O.A. documents should be examined on merit rather than the controversy regarding document authenticity.
M/s Need Telecommunications & Anr.
HDFC Bank Ltd.
Brijesh Sethi
As recorded by the court registry
4 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
