Pradeep Chawla vs Punjab National Bank

Ashok Menon, Chairperson

The appeal is filed challenging the order dated 13.10.2023 in Interim Application (I.A.) No. 1283 of 2023 in Original Application (O.A) No. 276 of 2019, on the files of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Mumbai (D.R.T.) rejecting an application for condonation of 330 days delay in filing a written statement within the prescribed time as contemplated under Sec. 19(5)(i) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993(“RDB Act”, for short).

The appellant is the original defendant No.3 in the O.A. The appellant alleges that the delay was because of not being supplied with the entire set of applications and papers filed along with the summons issued as per the direction of the D.R.T. The appellant had appeared before the Tribunal on 27.11.2020 and 29.01.2021 respectively, but due to the COVID pandemic, the board was discharged.  On  29.04.2022,  the  appellant  again  appeared  and submitted before the Tribunal about the not being served with the compilation. After that only on 02.05.2022 did the respondent bank serve the records. The O.A. was listed on 13.01.2023, but due to health issues, the appellant could not appear. Meanwhile, the respondent bank applied to substitute the name of the applicant Oriental Bank of Commerce with the Punjab National Bank as a consequence of the amalgamation of the banks, and the same was allowed and carried out by the bank. The appellant tried to engage an advocate but due to his ill-health, he was unable to hand over the brief to the advocate, which caused some further delay. Consequently, the appellant filed an I.A. No. 1283 of 2023 for condoning the delay of 330 days in filing the written statement by stating that there were no wilful laches on his part.

The respondent bank has vehemently refuted the contentions stated by the appellant in the said I.A. The O.A. was filed to recover ₹1,43,94,557.93 with interest from the appellant and respondents Nos. 2 to 8 as they had defaulted in repayment of the loan. The respondent bank contended that the summons had been duly served upon the appellant and the other defendants together with the compilation. The respondent bank had also filed a claim affidavit along with the compilation of documents and the written arguments.

It has to be observed at the outset that the impugned order of Ld. Presiding Officer held that as per the provision of the RDB Act, the defendants are required to file their written statement within 30 days. The appellant had filed the written statement after 330 days, and therefore in terms of section 19(5), the written statement filed by him beyond the period stipulated cannot be received. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the decision of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hill Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd (2020) 5 SCC 757 that there is no power to extend the time for filing a response to the complaint beyond 45 days in a matter coming under the Consumer Protection Act, wherein Sec 38(2)(a) is pari materia to Sec. 19(5)(i) of the RDB Act. Hence, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed.

Sec. 19(5) (i) of the RDB Act envisages this:

“the defendant shall within a period of thirty days from 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 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.”

Rule 12 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 states thus:

“12. Filing of written statement and other documents by the defendant and by the applicant as a reply to the written statement—(1) the defendants may, within a period of thirty days from the date of service of summons, file two complete sets of written statement including claim for set-off or counter-claim, if any, along with documents in a paper book form.

(3) if the defendant fails to file a written statement of his defence, including claim for set-off or counter-claim under sub-rule(1), if any, within the period of thirty days, the presiding officer may in exceptional case and special circumstances to be recorded in writing, extend the period, by such further period not exceeding fifteen days.”

Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure also states thus:

“The defendant shall, within thirty days from the date of service of summons on him, present a written statement of his defence, and provided that where the defendant fails to file the Written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day, as may be specified by the court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons.”

The Ld. Counsel for respondents relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Crest Steel and Power Pvt Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors. 2018 SCC OnLine MP 1339 wherein it was held that a written statement is required to be filed within thirty days, which could in exceptional cases or in special circumstances be extended by the Tribunal by another fifteen days.

In the case at hand, a delay of 330 days in filing the written statement is sought to be condoned. The only provision to condone delay is by invoking the provisions of Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has in Standard Chartered Bank vs. MSTC Ltd. (2020)13 SCC 618 held that the D.R.T. has no power to condone delay in reviewing its orders filed beyond 30 days. The Hon’ble Apex Court has also in International Asset Reconstruction Company of India Ltd vs. Official Liquidator of Aldrich Pharmaceuticals Limited & Ors (2017)16 SCC 137 held that delay in filing an appeal under Sec. 30 of the RDB Act cannot be condoned by invoking Sec.5 of the Limitation Act.

The upshot of the discussions made above is that delay in filing the written statement beyond the time stipulated under Sec. 19(5)(i) of the RDB Act and Rule 12 of the procedure rules cannot be condoned by applying Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. The impugned order has no error calling for interference in appeal. The appeal is therefore to be dismissed as meritless.

Though the appeal is dismissed, the appellant is given the liberty to contest the O.A. on merits on the question of law at the time of arguments. There shall be no defence on factual matters since there are no pleadings advanced by the appellant.