Abishek Traders & Ors vs IDBI Bank Ltd

…Appellant

IDBI Bank Ltd.

…Respondent

Case No: Misc. Appeal No. 06/2018

Date of Judgement: 02/01/2023

Judge:

Mr Justice Ashok Menon, Chairperson

For Appellant: Mr S. N. Fuladi with Mr Radhe Aggarwal, Advocates.

For Respondent: Mr Chetan Akerkar, Advocate.

Download Court Copy CLICK HERE

Facts:

Arguments by the Appellants:

The reasons for the delay in filing the written statement were explained in the applications. The counsel contended that there was no provision in the RDB Act to file an application for condonation of delay. Hence, in the interest of justice, the Appellants should be given an opportunity to plead their defence, and the O.A. should be disposed of after considering the pleadings of the defendants and hearing them on merits.

Arguments by the Respondent Bank:

Court’s Elaborate Opinions:

The Presiding Officer had rejected the prayer to receive the written statements out of time, reasoning that the delay could not be condoned without an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

The main question for consideration was whether the DRT had the power to condone the delay in exercising jurisdiction under the Limitation Act.

Cases Cited:

International Asset Reconstruction Company of India vs. Official Liquidator of Aldrich Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2017) 16 SCC 137

Standard Chartered Bank Ltd vs. MSTC Ltd. (2020) 13 SCC 618

Avneesh Chandan Gadgil vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce Live Law 2021 SC 679

Madhao Somaji Sarode vs. Jotiba Dhyan Upasak Shikshan Sanstha Dudhala 2004 (3) MhLJ 1078

Sections and Laws Referred:

Section 20(1) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963

Rule 12(1) of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993

Order:

The appeals were dismissed, though without costs. However, the court clarified that since the defendants had appeared in the O.A., although they had not filed written statements, the learned counsel for the defendants was at liberty to argue the matter on all legal issues. Since there were no pleadings regarding the facts, no arguments based on factual matters that ought to have been pleaded could be entertained.