$~27 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 25.02.2025 + W.P.(C) 2383/2025 & CM APPL. 11272/2025 GOVERNMENT OF MADHYA PRADESH DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY .....Petitioner Through: Mr Nidesh Gupta, Sr Advocate with Mr Aashish Anand Berenard, Mr Vikram Dwivedi and Mr Paramhans Sahani, Advocates.

versus POWER FINANCE CORPORATION LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr Deepak Khurana, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA VIBHU BAKHRU, J. (ORAL

1. Issue notice.

2. The learned counsel for the respondent accepts notice.

3. With the consent of the learned counsels for parties, the petition is taken up for hearing.

4. The petitioner (Government of State of Madhya Pradesh, Department of Energy) has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAM W.P. (C) 2383/2025 Page 1 of 12 dated 10.11.2022 (hereafter the impugned order) passed by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Delhi (hereafter the DRT) whereby the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay in filing the written statement (hereafter the WS) to the Original Application (TA No.29/2022) captioned Power Finance Corporation Limited v. Government of Madhya Pradesh, Department of Energy filed before the learned DRT, was rejected on the ground that it was barred by limitation.

5. The petitioner also impugns an order dated 15.04.2024 (hereafter the recall order) whereby the application of the petitioner for recalling of the impugned order was summarily rejected.

6. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had appealed before the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (hereafter the DRAT), however it is stated that the appeal (Misc Appeal No.179/2024 captioned Government of Madhya Pradesh, Department of Energy v. Power Finance Corporation Limited) was listed before the learned Tribunal on more than fourteen occasions in the recent past but was not taken up for hearing. It has been repeatedly adjourned.

7. In the aforesaid context, the petitioner also prays in the alternative that the directions be issued to the learned Tribunal to decide the aforesaid appeal in a time bound manner.

8. We do not consider it apposite to issue any directions to the learned Tribunal in this regard. However, in the peculiar circumstances of the present case and considering the issue involved is in narrow compass, we Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAM W.P. (C) 2383/2025 Page 2 of 12 consider it apposite to decide the dispute on merits.

9. The learned DRT has passed the impugned order on the ground that the WS was not filed by the petitioner within the stipulated period of thirty days and the delay in filing such WS exceeds the further period of fifteen days that could be condoned by the learned DRT. Additionally, the learned DRT also held that the petitioner had not furnished sufficient cause for justifying the delay in filing the WS.

10. There is no cavil that it is mandatory that a WS of defense is required to be filed within the period of thirty days of the service of the Original Application (hereafter the OA) on the defendants and the delay in filing the WS beyond the period of fifteen days cannot be condoned.

11. Thus, in the given facts of the case, the questions that falls for consideration are – (i) whether the WS filed by the petitioner was within the period of delay that could be condoned by the learned DRT; and if so, (ii) whether the petitioner had furnished sufficient cause for condonation of such delay.

12. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the events, which are undisputed.

13. The respondent had filed the OA (Original Application No.509/2022) under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (hereafter the RDB Act). The notice issued by the learned DRT along with the complete copy of the OA was served to the petitioner by email on 30.08.2022 and was delivered through courier on 02.09.2022. Undisputedly, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:R