AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
None appeared on behalf of the appellant when the case is called at about 11:15 a.m. Matter be called again at 1:00 p.m.
The matter is taken up again at 1:00 p.m.
Sh. Abhishek Arora, Advocate put appearance on behalf of the appellant and stated that due to technical glitch he could not join the VC in the first call and stated that the O.A. No. 887/2021 is pending before DRT-III, Delhi
The appellant being defendant no.6 before DRT-III, Delhi in O.A. No. 887/2021 titled as Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Private Limited & others v. Gayatri Infra Planners Private Limited filed I.A. bearing No. 1155/2024 for seeking relief to file an additional written statement and to place on record certain documents. The appellant (the defendant no.6) contended that the O.A. was premature and contrary to the RBI guidelines on NPA classification and guarantee invocation. It was also accepted by the appellant that the appellant was employee of respondent no.2 (defendant no.1) and subsequently become the non-Executive Director. It was also contended that the appellant has resigned from the alleged default and never executed the guarantee.
The DRT-III, Delhi vide impugned order dated 02.07.2025 has dismissed the I.A. bearing No. 1155/2024 by observing that the amendment of the Original Application does not give any additional right to the defendants to file fresh Written Statement once the time to file Written Statement has already expired. It was also observed by the DRT in relation to the documents sought to be placed on record that those documents were not newly discovered or not necessary documents but all the documents happened to be the pre-dated from the filing of Written Statement. The relevant portion of the order dated 02.07.2025 is reproduced as under:
5.Considering the submissions advanced on behalf of Ld. Counsel for both the parties, the Tribunal and after due perusal the record. It is not in dispute that the Defendant No. 6 did not file his written statement within the statutory period prescribed under Section 19(5)(i) of the RDB Act, 1993. The application at hand, styled as one seeking leave to file an "additional written statement," is conspicuously silent on the fact that no written statement was filed within the prescribed time. This omission is material and suggests a deliberate attempt to bypass statutory requirements.
6.It is settled law that the amendment of the Original Application by the Financial Institution does not automatically re-open the right to file a written statement afresh, particularly when such right had already lapsed due to the expiry of the statutory period. Additionally, the documents now sought to be brought on record are not shown to be newly discovered or previously unavailable; rather, they are all dated prior to the filing of the written statement and could have been placed on record at the relevant stage. This Tribunal also finds force in the objection that such documents are not essential for adjudication and may unnecessarily prolong the proceedings. The statutory timelines under the RDB Act are to be respected to ensure expeditious adjudication. Defendant No. 6 has failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstance warranting the indulgence of this Tribunal to allow the present application.
7.In view of the above discussion, the Tribunal is of the considered view that, that the present application lacks merit both on factual and legal grounds. The filing of an additional written statement without disclosing the earlier lapse and without justifying the delay is impermissible. Further, the documents sought to be introduced at this belated stage do not pass the test of relevance or necessity. Accordingly, IA No. 1155/2024 is hereby dismissed.
8.List the matter on 12.08.2025 for final arguments.
Sh. Abhishek Arora, Advocate for the appellant argued that the appellant was permitted to file Written Statement to the amended O.A., as such, the appellant should have been permitted to file the additional Written Statement besides forcing the arguments to place certain documents on record.
The contention of Sh. Arora, Advocate was vehemently contested by Sh. R.P. Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent FI.
There is no provision which permit the parties to file additional Written Statement and in this regard, the DRT-III, Delhi has rightly observed that no additional Written Statement can be allowed to file particularly when no Written Statement was filed within the prescribed time. The DRT-III, Delhi has also rightly observed that all the documents sought to be placed on record were not newly discovered documents and they were available while the defendants had a chance to file Written Statement. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 02.07.2025. The present appeal is devoid of any merit, hence, dismissed.