AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
I.A. No.89/2026 (application for condonation of delay filed by appellants)
There is a delay of 55 days in filing the present appeal which was caused due to the reasons mentioned in the application. The delay is stated to be neither intentional nor deliberate. The counsel for the appellant prayed for condonation of the delay. After considering all fact, the delay of 55 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application is accordingly allowed.
Misc. Appeal No.174/2026
The respondent State Bank of India filed O.A. bearing No.6704/2023 titled as State Bank of India Vs. Sway Techno Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & others which is stated to be pending before DRT-II, Delhi. DRT-II, Delhi vide the impugned order dated 10.10.2025 observed that the defendants 1, 3, 4 and 5 have failed to file the written statement and accordingly their right to file the written statement was ordered to be closed. The defendants 1, 3, 4 and 5 before the DRT are the appellants in the present appeal. The impugned order dated 10.10.2025 passed by DRT-II, Delhi is reproduced as under:-
Matter is taken through Video Conferencing / Hybrid Mode.
Despite being granted several opportunities, defendant no.1, 3, 4 and 5 have filed to file the written statement, therefore, the right of defendant no.1, 3, 4 and 5 to file the written statement is hereby closed.
The Ld. Counsel for the applicant bank is directed to take steps for impleadment of LR’s of the defendant no.2 as a necessary party in the present matter.
Matter be listed on 11.12.2025 before the Registrar for completion of pleadings.
Sh. Prerak Khurana, Advocate for the appellants during the course of arguments fairly admitted that the written statement on behalf of appellants/defendants 1, 3, 4 and 5 was filed beyond 45 days as provided under Section 19(5)(i) of the Recovery Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The counsel for the appellants stated that as per Section 19(5) (i) of the Act, a defendant is given 30 days’ time from the date of service of summons to present his written statement of defence which can be extended not exceeding 15 days in exceptional and special circumstances. It is further argued that the time limit as provided under Section 19(5)(i) of the Act is not mandatory and is directory in nature and it can be extended. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Telangana High Court in M/s Ravali Industries Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Prop. Yelle Ravali & another V The State Bank of India, Rep. by its Authorised Officer, Chikkadapally Hyderabad & two others (W.P.No.27639/2021, decided on 11.11.2021) wherein it was held that the DRT erred in holding that it had no power to extend the time for filing written statement beyond 45 days. It was observed that whether to condone the delay or not in the given facts and circumstances of a case is a different question altogether. In this case, reference was also made to New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd., (2020) 5 SCC 757.
Ms. Jaya Tomar, Advocate for the respondent argued that there was delay of more than one year in filing the written statement which was also filed after the passing of the impugned order dated 10.10.2025.
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 along with original documents or true copies thereof. 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. As mentioned hereinabove, the Telangana High Court after taking note of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd. in Ravali Industries Pvt Ltd. (supra) observed that the Tribunal does have the power to extend time to file written statement beyond 45 days. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Shri Ram Gupta and others V Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal and others, (2026) ibclaw.in 1943 HC also observed that provisions containing in Section 19 of the Act read in consonance with Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is settled to be directory in nature and is not mandatory.
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. case (supra) which was also referred by Telangana High Court also 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 the pronouncement 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. In the present case, admittedly, defendants 1, 3, 4 and 5 have filed the written statement beyond 45 days which is also not disputed by their counsel. The delay in filing the written statement before the DRT cannot be condoned. There is no legal force in the argument advanced by the counsel for the appellant. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order dated 10.10.2025 which warrants any interference from this Tribunal. The present appeal is devoid of any merit. Hence, dismissed.