Chamber appeal dismissed. Court held that claims pending since 2021 without resolution of objections are time-barred. Relied on Supreme Court precedent and Section 24 of RDB Act, rejecting condonation of delay.
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 TRIBUNAL-2, CHANDIGARH
ITEM NO.135
CA/1/2025
IDFC FIRST BANK LTD. Vs M/S KHURANA GUEST HOUSE
06.11.2025
Present: Mr. Abhishek Bhateja Advocate for the Applicant (CA) Mr. Naveen Kumar, Respondent in person
This is a Chamber Appeal against the order dated 10.02.2025 passed by the Assistant Registrar declining to register the OA filed by the Applicant.
Way back on 24.09.2021, Applicant Bank had filed an OA online along with court fees. However, Applicant did not file any hard copy at the time of filing. This deserves to be mentioned that in the year 2021, the rules provided that along with the online OA, hard copy be also filed and the OA would be treated to have been filed on the day, the hard copy is filed. The matter continued to be pending with the Registry. However, on 10.02.2025, AR pointed out that despite giving many opportunities, the Applicant Bank has not removed the objections. On 21.06.2025, Applicant filed the present Appeal. However, again there were some defects and the Applicant removed the same on 07.07.2025.
Mr. Bhateja, counsel for the Applicant argues that the OA as on date is beyond limitation. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of ‘International Asset Reconstruction Company of India Ltd. Vs The Official Liquidator of Aldrich Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and others’ arising out of Civil Appeal No.16962 of 2017 and ‘Iridium India Telecom Ltd. Vs Doha Bank QSC and Another’
arising out of Civil Appeal No.16963 of 2017 , he has argued that the delay in filing the OA be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Standard Chartered Bank Vs MSTC Limited’ arising out of Civil Appeal No.501 of 2020.
I have perused the judgement. However, I am of the considered view that the second judgment in fact is against the Applicant as Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fali Nirman has categorically laid down that the application as mentioned in Section 24 of the
CA/1/2025 IDFC FIRST BANK LTD. Vs M/S KHURANA GUEST HOUSE
2
RDB Act means application under Section 19. Under the law, in a suit, no application under Section 5 is maintainable. Similar is the position under the RDB Act. The application under Section 5 cannot be filed along with OA. Accordingly, I am of the considered view that as on date, the OA is time-barred. Applicant had filed the OA on 24.09.2021. Till 10.02.2025, Applicant did not remove the objections despite the fact that he was granted many opportunities. Accordingly, there is no merit in the Appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Pronounced in the open Tribunal (A.S. Narang) Dated:06.11.2025 Presiding Officer DRT-2, Chandigarh (Additional Charge)
ANJ
2 issues framed by the court
Whether delay in filing the Office Asset (OA) beyond the prescribed limitation can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in debts recovery proceedings.
Whether a Section 5 application is maintainable under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
International Asset Reconstruction Company of India Ltd. Vs The Official Liquidator of Aldrich Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and othersReferred¶9
International Asset Reconstruction Company of India Ltd. Vs The Official Liquidator of Aldrich Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and others arising out of Civil Appeal No.16
Iridium India Telecom Ltd. Vs Doha Bank QSC and AnotherReferred¶9
Iridium India Telecom Ltd. Vs Doha Bank QSC and Another arising out of Civil Appeal No.16963 of 2017
Standard Chartered Bank Vs MSTC LimitedDistinguished¶10
Standard Chartered Bank Vs MSTC Limited arising out of Civil Appeal No.501 of 2020
Section 24 of the RDB ActApplied¶11
Section 24 of the RDB Act
IDFC FIRST BANK LTD.
M/S KHURANA GUEST HOUSE
ANJ
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
