AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The respondent no.1 filed O.A. bearing No. 32/2024 titled as National Asset Reconstruction Company Limited V. Hitodi Infrastructure Private Limited & others. The appellant being the respondent no.6 before the DRT filed an application bearing I.A. bearing No. 101/2025 for condonation of delay of 7 days in filing the Written Statement beyond 30 days. I.A. bearing No. 101/2025 was ordered to be dismissed vide impugned order dated 17.04.2025 passed by DRT-III, Delhi. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 17.04.2025 is reproduced as under:
10.Having heard Ld. counsels for both the parties and after perusal of record, this Tribunal is of the view that it is admitted position that defendant no. 6 was duly served in terms of rule 2 (e) of Debts Recovery Tribunals and Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunals Electronic Filing Rules, 2020. It is also admitted position that in this case written statement along with evidence has been filed on behalf of defendant no. 6 after elapse of statutory limitation mentioned u/s 19.(5) (i) RDB Act. So far as, reasons given by defendant no. 6 for filing the WS after a delay of 7-days i.e. that office of the counsel was closed from 25.12.2024 to 31.12.2024 due to winter vacations; that the OA is voluminous and having complex facts and revenant documents; that Mr. Ravi, the officer from the management of defendant no.6 was based out of USA; that the authorized signatory of defendant no. 6 had to urgently leave for her maternal house because of ill health of her 80-years old mother due to which WS could not be filed from 24.01.2025 till 26.01.2025, this Tribunal is of the view that these circumstances cannot be considered as exceptional circumstances. In the light of above, it is clear that the defendant no. 6 has failed to file its WS and evidence within stipulated time as mentioned u/s 19(5)(i) of RDB Act. In these circumstances, IA No. 101/2025 is liable to be dismissed and same stands dismissed. Accordingly, the WS and evidence filed by defendant no. 6 are not taken on record.
Chapter 4 of the Recovery of Debts And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 deals with procedure of Tribunals. Section 19(5)(i) provides that the defendant shall file Written Statement within a period of thirty days from the date of service of summons, and proviso clause attached to Section 19(5)(i) provides that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the period of thirty days, the Presiding Officer may, in exceptional cases and in special circumstances to be recorded in writing, extend the period not exceeding fifteen days to file the written statement.
The Counsel for the appellant during the course of argument referred the application filed before the DRT for condonation of delay in filing Written Statement and in particular Para 4 which is reproduced as under:
4.However, Defendant No. 6 could only file the Written Statement on 27.01.2025, after a delay of 7 days from 20.01.2025, because of the following reasons:
A. That from 25.12.2024 to 31.12.2024 winter vacations were going on in the office of counsel of Defendant No. 6 and he was out of station during this period and could not work on the written statement.
B. That the OA is voluminous and having complex facts and several documents, which took considerable time to examine the contents of the OA and prepare its response.
C. Since Mr. Ravi, the officer from the management of Defendant No. 6 who had to provide necessary inputs for preparing the Written Statement, was based out of USA, coordinating with him took time due to difference in time zones.
D. That the draft of the Written Statement could finally be prepared by the counsel of Defendant No. 6 by 22.01.2025 and the same was shared for the comments of Defendant No. 6 Company's management.
E. The Defendant No. 6 Company's management gave their comments on the draft which was then revised by the counsel.
F. Thereafter, the Authorized Signatory, Mrs. Anita Prasad Katdare of Defendant No. 6 Company had to urgently leave for her maternal home at Karajgaon, Taluka Dapoli District Ratnagiri, Maharashtra because of ill-health of her mother – who is of 80 years age. Thus, the Authorized Signatory was not available for signing the Written Statement from 24.01.2025 till 26.01.2025.
The perusal of contention as made in para 4 of the said application, it reflects that the appellant has pointed out certain circumstances which can be accepted as an exceptional circumstances to condone the delay of 7 days beyond 30 days in filing the written statement in terms of Section 19 (5)(i) of the Act. The DRT in impugned judgment/ order has not considered the proper reason as given in Para 4 of the application.
The Counsel for the respondent no.1 argued that the appellant has not placed any documentary evidence to substantiate his contention as stated in the application.
After considering all facts, the impugned order dated 17.04.2025 is set aside to the extent whereby I.A. bearing No. 101/2025 filed by the appellant being defendant no. 6 before the DRT was dismissed and the Written Statement already filed on behalf of the appellant being defendant no. 6 is allowed to be taken on record.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.