In an application seeking condonation of delay for filing a written statement under the RDB Act, the DRT held that the 30-day limit is mandatory and cannot be extended. Relying on New India Assurance, the court declined the application as the submission was beyond the prescribed period.
Application for condonation of delay to file written statement declined.
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.
IA No. 2197 of 2023 In OA 6 of 2022
| 06/09/2023 | Ex. No. |
Before Presiding Officer Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar, DRT-1, Mumbai. Roznama in OA 6 of 2022 IDBI Bank Vs Ganesh Mhatre |
Next date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Advocate M. R. Patel appeared for the Applicant. Advocate Sanjay Upadya appeared for the Defendant No. 3. IA No. 2197/2023 1. By way of the present IA, the Applicant seeking condonation of delay to file written statement by the Defendant No.3. 2. Heard both sides on the present IA. 3. Before proceeding further, the relevant provision for written statement i.e Section 19 (5) (i) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (for short “the Act, 1993”), is extracted herein below: “(5) (i)the defendantshall within a period of thirty daysfrom the date of service of summons, present a written statement of his defence including claim for set-off under sub- section (6) or a counter-claim under sub- section (8), if any, and such written statement |
1
IA No. 2197 of 2023 In OA 6 of 2022
shall be accompanied with original documents or true copies thereof with the leave of the Tribunal, relied on by the defendant in his defence: Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, the Presiding Officer may, in exceptional cases and in special circumstances to be recorded in writing, extend the said period by such further period not exceeding fifteen days to file the written statement of his defence;” (emphasis provided highlighted portion by undersigned) 4. Thus, as per the provision of the Act, 1993, the defendants are required to file their written statement within 30 days. 5. Admittedly, in the present matter this Tribunal issued summons to the Defendants including the Defendant No.3 on 19.07.2022. The notices were sent to the Defendant No. 3 on 30.07.2022 which was duly served upon the Defendant No. 3 on 02.08.2022 as per the speed post receipt and tracking report filed by the Applicant (Exb.9), whereas as per record written statement is filed by
2
IA No. 2197 of 2023 In OA 6 of 2022
the Defendant No. 3 on 15.06.2023 thus, the same is beyond the limitation of 30 days as provided under Section 19 (5)(i) of the Act, 1993, and this Tribunal has no power to condone the delay under Section 19 (5)(i) of the Act, 1993. 6. In the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hill Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd.: (2020) 5 SCC 757 a constitution Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court has already held that there is no power to extend the time for filing response to the complaint beyond 45 days. 7. It is important to note here that Hill Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd. ( supra ) i s pertaining to the Section 38(2)(a) The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which is pari materia to Section 19(5)(i) of the Act, 1993. 8. Thus, in view of the above since the Defendant No. 3 failed to file a written statement within prescribed time therefore, the present application is hereby declined. P.O. DRT-I
3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal has power to condone delay in filing a written statement beyond the 30-day period
Whether the appeal would lie against an order declining to condone delay under Section 19(5)(i)
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hill Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd.Explained¶6
(2020) 5 SCC 757 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
IDBI Bank
Ganesh Mhatre
Rekha G. Dhakar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Rekha G. Dhakar
Parties & counsel
