AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The respondent filed O.A. bearing no.2991/2107 titled as Punjab National Bank vs. Satyam Organic Private Limited & others which is stated to be pending before DRT-II, Chandigarh. The appellant filed an application bearing I.A. No.163/2019 for recalling the order dated 13.11.2017 whereby the right to file written statement was ordered to be closed by the DRT. The perusal of the order dated 13.11.2017 reflects that the copy of the O.A. was supplied to the appellants on 12.10.2017 but thereafter the appellants did not file their written statement and accordingly the right to file the written statement was closed.
The appellant filed I.A. No.163/2019 for calling the order dated 13.11.2017 which was ordered to be dismissed vide the impugned order dated 01.10.2019 passed by DRT-II, Chandigarh.
The counsel for the appellants argued that due to the negligence on the part of the counsel for the appellants the written statement could not be filed. However, the counsel for the appellants during the course of arguments could not refer any legal proposition by which delay beyond 45 days in filing the written statement can be condoned. Counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgments in Diamond Exports & another V. United Indian Insurance Company Limited & others, (2002) 4 SCC 169 and N. Balakrishnan V. M. Krishamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123.
There was a delay in filing the written statement to the O.A. bearing no. 2991/2017 which was filed beyond 45 days as provided under Section 19(5)(i) of the RDB Act. Section 19(5)(i) provides that the defendant has to present the written statement of his defence within a period of 30 days from the date of service of summons. The proviso to the said section further provides that if the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, it can be extended in exceptional and special circumstances to be recorded in writing for a period not exceeding 15 days. Section 19(5)(i) of the Act reads as under:-
Section 19.
(5)(i) 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;
It is reflecting that the defendant has to file written statement within maximum period of 45 days. The issue whether there can be further extension beyond 45 days to file written statement was subject matter of consideration of superior courts. The High Court of Delhi in Anita Garg and others V State Bank of India, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4311 in para 32 observed that Section 19(5)(i) of the Act does not provide for forfeiture of right to file written statement if it is not filed within the stipulated time or the extended time but the written statement filed beyond the stipulated time or extended time cannot be brought on record. The relevant para 32 of the judgment is reproduced as under:-
32.Though, Section 19(5)(i) does not, in terms, provide for the forfeiture of the right to file the written statement. If it is not filed within the stipulated time, or the extended time that could and may be granted, in our view, the consequence would be the same, as the written statement filed beyond the stipulated time, or extended time which could legally be granted for that purpose, cannot be brought on record. The intention of the Parliament can be gathered not only from the Statement of Objects and Reasons set out hereinabove, but also from the outer limit of time, for which extension may, in a deserving case by following the guideline laid down in the Section, be granted. The proceedings before the DRT are also proceedings arising out of commercial dealings and the disputes are commercial disputes. It would not stand to reason, that while the Parliament sought to enforce strict timelines for expeditious disposals of commercial disputes by enacting the Commercial Courts Act, it did not do so in respect of disputes of the same kind, decided by the Debt Recovery Tribunals. The only reason for not incorporating the forfeiture clause in Section 19 is, that the existing provision contained in Section 19 leads to the same conclusion.
The Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd., (2020) 5 SCC 757, considered the issue whether the stipulated time or extended time for filing the written statement under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which is similar to Section 19(5)(i) of the Act can be extended or not and observed that the time limit specified for filing the response to the complaint is mandatory and not directory. The relevant para 33 of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-
33.Once consequences are provided for not filing the response to the complaint within the time specified, and it is further provided that proceedings complying with the procedure laid down under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act shall not be called in question in any court on the ground that the principles of natural justice have not been complied with, the intention of the legislature is absolutely clear that the provision of sub-section (2)(a) of Section 13 of the Act in specifying the time-limit for filing the response to the complaint is mandatory, and not directory.
The legal proposition as laid down by the Supreme Court was further reaffirmed and reiterated in Daddy's Builders Private Limited & another V Manisha Bhargawa & another, (2021) 3 Supreme Court Cases 669 and Dr. Vijay Dixit & others V Pagadal Krishna Mohan & others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2279.
It is apparent from various pronouncements of the Supreme Court that Section 13 although in the context of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which is similar to the provisions contained in Section 19(5)(i) of the Act, the period of 45 days cannot be extended for filing the written statement by the defendant. The counsel for the appellant could not point out any specific legal provision where the filing of Written Statement can be extended beyond 45 days.
In view of above, the submissions and arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellant are not appearing to be convincing. There is no merit in the appeal, hence dismissed.