$~50 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 18793/2025, CM APPL. 78233/2025 (Stay), CM APPL. 78234/2025 (Ex.) & CM APPL. 78235/2025 (Ex.)

MR. SANDEEP BANSIL & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Rudhreshwar Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jai Bansal, Ms. Rakshita Saxena and Ms.

Namrata Kathuria, Advocates.

versus HDFC BANK LIMITED & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ateev Mathur and Ms.

Jagriti Ahuja, Advocate for Respondent No. 1.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR O R D E R % 11.12.2025

1. The present Writ Petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Impugned Order dated 24.11.2025 passed by the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal Delhi [“DRAT”]. By way of the Impugned Order, the learned DRAT dismissed the Misc. Appeal No. 165/2025, which was preferred by the Petitioners, seeking to set aside the Order dated 30.06.2025 of the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal [“DRT”] dismissing the IA No. 11248/2024 in Original Application [“OA”]

bearing OA No. 267/2016.

2. It is submitted that the OA, filed by the Respondent-Bank, has been pending before the learned DRT for the last nine years.

3. An application bearing No. 1778/2018 was filed by the Respondent-Bank for permission to amend the OA, which was allowed on 16.09.2019. The Petitioners, who are Defendants in OA, were also granted the liberty to file an additional statement or amended written statement.

4. However, the Petitioners herein, in the presence of their Deputy General Manager [“DGM”] suffered a statement on 18.12.2019 to the effect that they do not intend to file any amended written statement on their behalf.

5. After a period of nearly 6 years, an application was filed for permission to file an amended written statement on the ground that the statement given on 18.12.2019 was incorrect, and the learned counsel made the statement without instructions from the Petitioners. Learned DRT, after examining the matter, noted that the statement had been given in the presence of DGM of the Petitioners and therefore the plea taken by the Petitioners is factually incorrect. The aforesaid Order has been upheld in the Appeal by the learned DRAT as well.

6. Learned counsel representing the Petitioners submits that due to incorrect advice of the erstwhile learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners/Defendants therein, the amended written statement could not be filed, and now, with the change of counsel, the Petitioners wish to file the amended written statement.

7. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioners.

8. It is evident that the statement on 18.12.2019 made by the erstwhile learned counsel for the Petitioners was done so in the presence of the DGM of Borrower Company, and the Petitioners are the guarantors of the said Borrower Company.

9. This Court is of the opinion that it is too late a stage to entertain such a request made on behalf of the Petitioners.

10. Hence, we find no ground to interfere with the decision of the learned DRAT as well as the learned DRT.

11. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition, along with pending application(s), if any, stands dismissed.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

DECEMBER 11, 2025/nd/va/dj