฀eportable/Non-฀eportable ฀IN฀THE฀DEBTS฀RECOVERY฀APPELLATE฀TRIBUNAL฀AT฀

KOLKATA ฀฀HON’BLE฀MR.฀฀JUSTICE฀ANIL฀KUMAR฀SRIVASTAVA ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀CHAIRPERSON ฀isc. Appeal Dy. No. 1447 of 2025 (Arising out of I.A. No. 2390 of 2024 in O.A.899 of 2023 in DRT- 2, Hyderabad)

1. ฀/s. Lampex Electronics Limited, represented by its ฀anaging Director R/H. No. 6-2-231/B, Vivekananda Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad 500072.

2. Nidamarthy Siva Prasad, R/H. No. 6-2-231/B, Vivekananda Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad 500072.

.…Appellants -Versus-

1. State Bank of India, Represented through Authorized Officer, I.E.

Sanath Nagar Branch, D. No. 7-2-C/47/A, Industrial Estate Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad 500018.

2. N. ฀aha Lakshmi H. No. 6-2-231/B, Vivek Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad 500072.

3. N. Hima Gouri, H. No. 6-2-231/B, Vivek Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad 500072.

4. Y. Partha Saradhi H. No. 1-4-180/22, Saibaba Colony, Sainikpuri, Kapra, Hyderabad 500094.

5. Sivanand Nidamarthy, Union Bank of India, R.P. Road Branch represented by its Branch ฀anager, Bunglow No. 109, New No.

1-7-252 to 254, Oxford Street, Sarojini Road, Secunderabad

500 003.

….Respondents Counsel for Appellants ฀r. Tirthankar Das Counsel for Respondents None JUDGMENT฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ :฀฀฀ ฀฀฀฀฀฀฀3rd฀February,฀2026 THE฀APPELLATE฀TRIBUNAL฀:฀

Heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the records.

2. Instant Appeal has been preferred against an order dated 17.07.2025 whereby the Learned DRT dismissed the I.A. No. 2390 of 2024 filed by the Appellant in O.A. No. 899 of 2023.

3. O.A. No. 899 of 2023 was filed by the Secured Creditor Bank wherein the right to file the written statement by the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 was forfeited by the Learned DRT. I.A. No. 2390 of 2024 was filed by the Appellant to set aside the order dated 26.03.2024 on the ground that the O.A. No. 899 of 2024 was listed on 18.01.2024 wherein time was given for furnishing the copy of the material papers to the Appellant and the matter was listed on 16.02.2024. On 16.02.2024 matter was posted for 12.03.2024 and thereafter on 26.03.2024. Learned Counsel for the Appellant would submit that no order of 12.03.2024 is available on website. It is further submitted that the material papers were not supplied to the Appellant. Hence, the written statement bonafidely could not be filed within the stipulated period. There is sufficient cause for extension of time to file the same. Learned DRT recorded a finding that defendants have been duly served. Despite putting in appearance they did not file the written statement within the stipulated time. A vague plea is taken that no order of

12.03.2024 is available on the website. However, there is no statement that the matter was listed on 12.03.2024. Order sheet of 16.02.2024 further reveals that the material papers were ready but defendant did not choose to appear and obtain the relevant material papers.

4. Law is very well settled. Hon’ble ฀adhya Pradesh High Court in para 7 of the judgment in ฀/s. Crest Steel and Power Private Limited -vs- Punjab National Bank (2018 SCC OnLine ฀P 1339) held that:

฀On the other hand, learned counsel for the Bank referred to Three Judge Bench judgment of the Supreme Court reported as New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Private Limited, (2015) 16 SCC 22 (for short 'Hilli 1'), wherein the judgment in Kailash's case (supra) was found to be not correct view as the earlier Three Judges Bench Judgment in the case reported as Dr. J.J.

Merchant and others -Vs- Shrinath Chaturvedi, 2002 (6) SCC 635 was not noticed by the Bench."

5. In view of the observation of the Hon'ble Division Bench of ฀adhya Pradesh High Court, it is to be seen as to whether the provisions of Section of 19(5)(i) of the Act are mandatory or directory in nature?

6. In Para 8 of Crest Steel (supra), Hon'ble Division Bench of ฀adhya Pradesh High Court has placed reliance on Central Bank of India Vs. State of Kerala [(2009) 4 SCC 94] wherein it was held that:

"92. An analysis