Back
dismisses petition, affirms strict 45-day limit for written statements under
A Division Bench of the has firmly refused to in filing a beyond the 45-day under the . The Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Nikhil Poddar challenging a order that had rejected his belated in recovery proceedings initiated by .
Background of the case
The dispute arose from recovery proceedings before the where sought to recover dues from Nikhil Poddar. On , the complete paper-book of the original application was served on Poddar’s counsel. Under , a must be filed within 30 days from service of summons, with a further grace period of up to 15 days allowed only in recorded in writing. This meant the was due by at the latest. However, Poddar filed his on – over two months after the maximum permissible period.
The DRAT refused to take the on record, prompting Poddar to approach the High Court.
Petitioner’s arguments
Counsel for Poddar contended that the delay in filing the was attributable to the bank’s failure to provide the paper-book in a timely manner. He urged that the limitation period should be counted only from the date the complete paper-book was supplied to him.
Court’s reasoning and critical legal question
The core legal question before the Court was whether it possesses the power to condone any delay beyond the maximum period of 45 days prescribed under .
The Court examined the statutory framework, noting that permits the application of Sections 4 to 24 of that Act to special or local laws only to the extent they are not expressly excluded. Since the provides its own complete limitation regime, the Court held that – which empowers courts to condone delay – cannot be invoked.
" The is a in itself which provides for separate hierarchy of Tribunals as well as separate period of limitation and, therefore, is squarely applicable to the present case and provisions under Section 5 cannot be resorted to by the Court to condone the delay, " the Bench observed.
Precedents cited
The Court relied on a series of judgments interpreting analogous provisions:
- J.J. Merchant v. Shrinath Chaturvedi (2002) – Under the , the legislative mandate of a maximum 45 days for filing a version must be strictly adhered to.
- Union of India v. Popular Construction Co. (2001) – Under the , the phrase “but not thereafter” amounts to an of .
- Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise (2008) – Under the , the appellate authority has no power to condone delay beyond the prescribed extended period.
- Customs and Central Excise v. Hongo India Private Limited (2009) – The scheme of a special law may exclude Limitation Act provisions even without express reference.
- Druggists Association v. Kalyan Chowdhury (2018) – Under the , a further period for filing an appeal is and cannot be further extended.
- New India Assurance Company Limited v. Hili Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited (2020) – Under the , no discretion exists to extend the period for filing a response beyond 45 days.
- Anita Garg v. State Bank of India (2021, Delhi HC) – The bar set by for condoning delay in filing written statements under the is higher than mere “.”
Court’s observations on the facts
The Bench rejected Poddar’s argument regarding the bank’s delay, finding that the entire paper-book had been received by his counsel on . Therefore, the limitation clock began running from that date.
" The delay beyond the maximum period 45 days prescribed under cannot be condoned by any Court, " the judgment stated.
The Court also emphasised that the is designed for of public money, and strict adherence to timelines is essential to prevent .
Decision and implications
The writ petition was dismissed along with all pending applications. The ruling reinforces the inflexible nature of the 45-day deadline for filing written statements before Debts Recovery Tribunals, leaving no room for condonation beyond that period, even in extraordinary circumstances.
It is noteworthy that the earlier this year in took a different view on the same issue, creating a divergence in judicial opinion that may ultimately require resolution by the .
