The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal dismissed this appeal against the order refusing to condone the delay in filing a written statement before the lower DRT, relying on Supreme Court precedents that limit the Tribunal's extension power.
The appeal was dismissed; the Appellants are at liberty to argue the Original Application on merits.
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.
BEFORE THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AT: MUMBAI Present: Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson Misc. Appeal No. 145/2023
Between
Dr. Sandip Ashok Bharude & Ors. … Appellant/s V/s.
Canara Bank …Respondent/s
Mr. Anant Deshmukh, Advocate for Appellant appeared through Video Conferencing.
Mr. Gajendra Rajput, Advocate for Respondent appeared through Video Conferencing.
-: Order dated: 22/12/2023:-
The matter is taken up for hearing by way of a praecipe filed by the Appellants for seeking urgent relief.
1
paper book form. If the defendant fails to file the written statement of his defence, including the claim for set off or counter claim under sub rule (1), if any, within the period of 30 days, subrule 3 empowers the Presiding Officer in exceptional cases and special circumstances to be recorded in writing to extend the said period, mice such further period, not exceeding 15 days.
2
application under Rule 5 A of the D.R.T. (Procedure) Rules cannot be condoned under section 5 of the Limitation Act. In Avneesh Chandan Gadgil vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Live Law 2021 SC 679 , it is reiterated that section 5 of the Limitation Act has no application before the D.R.T. to condone the delay.
For the foregoing reasons, the Ld. Presiding Officer was justified in dismissing the application for condonation of delay to file a written statement. The appeal has no merits and is therefore dismissed. It is made clear that the Appellants are at liberty to argue the O.A. on merits based on legal issues. No arguments based on factual matters, without pleadings, shall be heard.
Sd/Chairperson
rm-38
3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Debts Recovery Tribunal is empowered to condone the delay in filing the written statement within the stipulated period.
Whether section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to condone delay in filing a written statement before the D.R.T.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
International Asset Reconstruction Company of India vs. Official Liquidator of Aldrich Pharmaceuticals LimitedFollowed¶16
International Asset Reconstruction Company of India vs. Official Liquidator of Aldrich Pharmaceuticals Limited, (2017) 16 SCC 137
Standard Chartered Bank Limited vs. MSTC LimitedFollowed¶16
Standard Chartered Bank Limited vs. MSTC Limited (2020) 13 SCC 618 · Who else cites this
Avneesh Chandan Gadgil vs. Oriental Bank of CommerceFollowed¶16
Avneesh Chandan Gadgil vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce, Live Law 2021 SC 679
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Dr. Sandip Ashok Bharude & Ors.
Canara Bank
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
4 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
