AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The respondent ICICI Bank filed O.A. bearing no.39/2021 before DRT-III, Delhi titled as ICICI Bank Limited V Ajay Kumar & Co and others. Subsequently, the O.A. bearing no.39/2021 was transferred to DRT-I, Delhi with a new T.A. No.379/2023 and is stated to be pending before DRT-I, Delhi at present. DRT-III, Delhi vide order dated 11.08.2022 closed the right of the defendants, i.e. the appellants to file written statement on the ground that it was not filed within the stipulated period of 45 days. The appellants, after the transfer of the O.A. from DRT-III, Delhi to DRT-I, Delhi filed I.A. No.1743/2022 for recalling the order dated 11.08.2022 and with the prayer to take the joint written statement filed by appellants/defendants no.1 to 5 on record. It was contended on behalf of the appellants/defendants 1 to 5 that the joint written statement was inadvertently filed before the Registry of DRT-II, Delhi vide dairy no.1308 dated 25.02.2022 and this had happened due to typographical error on the index of the written statement. I.A. No.1743/2022 was opposed by the respondent.
DRT-I, Delhi vide the impugned order dated 09.09.2024 has dismissed the application bearing no.1743/2022 by observing that the appellants should have refilled the written statement before DRT-I, Delhi but could not do even after lapse of more than 5 months. It was observed that the appellants were not vigilant about their case. DRT also observed that on 11.08.2022 the counsel for the appellants were present but did not inform the DRT regarding the filing of the joint written statement before DRT-II, Delhi. DRT-I, Delhi also observed that DRT-I, Delhi and DRT-II, Delhi are separate entities and are enjoying different jurisdictions.
Sh. Ravi Data, Advocate for the appellant argued that the joint written statement was filed on behalf of the appellants being the defendants 1 to 5 before DRT-II, Delhi due to bona fide mistake and a typographical error on the index and it was filed within the stipulated period of 45 days. It is further argued that the DRT-I, Delhi and DRT-II, Delhi are functioning under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 and their jurisdictions are separate only for the administrative purpose. In these circumstances he prayed that the impugned order dated 09.09.2024 may be set aside.
The counsel for the respondent defended the impugned order dated 09.09.2024 and argued that on 11.08.2022 the appellants did not inform the DRT-I, Delhi regarding the filing of the joint written statement before DRT-II, Delhi and, therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
There is no dispute about the filing of the joint written statement by the appellants before DRT-II, Delhi within the stipulated period and there was no delay on the part of the appellants in filing the written statement. It appears that due to bona fide mistake it was filed before DRT-II, Delhi in place of DRT-III, Delhi where initially the O.A. was filed. In these circumstances, after considering all facts, the present appeal is allowed. The joint written statement filed by the appellants is ordered to be taken on record of T.A. No.379/2023 which is stated to be pending before DRT-I, Delhi.