$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on : 27.01.2026 Date of decision: 12.02.2026 + W.P.(C) 19835/2025, CM APPL. 82791/2025 AVANTHA HOLDINGS LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sandeep Bajaj, Ms. Shruti Kanodia, Mr. Rishabh Dua, Mr. Kshitij Ujala, Mr. Maya Bihani, Advs. versus ICICI BANK LIMITED AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjiv Kakra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Bhamsen Jain, Mr. Akash Madan, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK CHAUDHARY HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR

J U D G M E N T

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the Order dated 16.12.2025 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata (holding Additional Charge of Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi) [“DRAT”] in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 222 of 2024, rejecting its appeal. In the appeal, the petitioner had challenged the Order dated 03.07.2024 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Delhi (“DRT”) dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 14 days in filing the written statement in Original Application No.7/2024 (“O.A.”).

2. The essential facts are that respondent no.1/Bank granted a Letter of Credit facility of US$ 50 million to respondent no.2, which is a subsidiary of the petitioner. To secure this facility, the petitioner and respondent no.2 executed the necessary loan and security documents, and the facility was revised and renewed over time with fresh documents being signed. Respondent no.2 committed repeated defaults in making payments under the Letter of Credit, leading the Bank to issue several demand notices to the petitioner, respondent no.2 and respondent no.3. Later, on 11.07.2018, the Facility Agreement was modified at the request of respondent no.2, and respondent no.3 executed a guarantee on 13.07.2018 agreeing to repay respondent no.2’s dues. As the outstanding amounts still remained unpaid, respondent no.1/Bank filed O.A. No. 7/2024 before DRT seeking recovery of ₹558,60,99,519.70/- from the defendants.

3. By Order dated 19.03.2024, the DRT directed issuance of summons to the defendants therein, requiring filing of their written statement including claim for set off or counter-claim, if any, within 30 days of service, failing which their right to file written statement and defence evidence would stand closed.

The summons were given under the seal of DRT on 22.03.2024.

4. While the Speed Post article addressed to the petitioner was returned, the complete paperbook, including summons, was admittedly served by the respondent no.1/ bank on 17.04.2024 through e-mail.

5. The petitioner filed its written statement on 31.05.2024 along with an application seeking condonation of delay of 14 days. The DRT dismissed the application for condonation of delay of 14 days in filing the written statement to the O.A. 7/2024.

6. The DRAT vide the impugned Order dated 16.12.2025, has affirmed and held that Section 19(5)(i) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (“RDB Act”) mandates filing of the written statement within 30 days, extendable by a further period not exceeding 15 days in exceptional cases and in special circumstances. The DRAT found that the petitioner had not shown such circumstances warranting extension. This order is under challenge before us.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the hard copy of the O.A. was never served upon the petitioner and, therefore, service through e-mail could not be treated as service of summons in the manner contemplated under Section 19(4) of the RDB Act read with the applicable DRT Rules. It is urged that in absence of proper service, the statutory period of 30 days did not commence, and consequently, the delay of 14 days in filing the written statement was liable to be condoned.

9. Learned counsel for respondent no.1/Bank, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner never disputed receipt of the entire paperbook, includin