DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI

Misc. Appeal No.44/2020

(Arising out of O.A. No.1156/2018 pending in DRT-II, Delhi)

State Bank of India

..... Appellant

Versus

1. Smt. Anita Garg

2. Sh. Prem Chand Garg

3. Smt. Pushpa Gupta

4. Smt. Radha Gupta

5. Smt. Anju Goel

..... Respondents

Date : 26.04.2021

CORAM : Mr. Justice P.K. Bhasin, Chairperson

Appearance:

Mr. Abhay Gupta and Mr. Ankur Mittal, Advocates for appellant

Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari and Mr. Deepak Sharma, advocates for

respondents

ORDER

This appeal is against the order dated 21.01.2020 of the Tribunal

below(DRT-II,

Delhi)

passed

in

appellant

bank9s

Original

Application(O.A.) No.1156/2018 filed under Section 19 of the Recovery

of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993( 8Act of 19939) for recovery of

Rs.306,86,83,742.44, which undisputedly is public money, against its

borrower Company by the name of M/s Kanu Aditya(India) Limited and

the respondents herein. By the impugned order the DRT has turned

Page 2 of 10

Misc Appeal No. 44/2020

down the prayer of the appellant bank for not accepting the written

statement and counter claim filed by the respondents-defendants for

the reason that the same had been filed beyond the mandatory period

of 30 days from the date of receipt of summons. As far as the corporate

borrower is concerned the bank has already taken it to NCLT where

resolution professional stands appointed in respect of the borrower

Company so no proceedings against it can continue.

2. It is not in dispute that the respondents-defendants in the O.A.

were served with the summons on 03.10.2018, as per the affidavit of

service filed by the bank before the DRT and which affidavit and

contents thereof have remained unrefuted from the side of

respondents-defendants. As per the provisions of Section 19(5) of the

Act of 1993 they were required to show cause within a period of thirty

days from the receipt of summons by filing a written statement as to

why the reliefs claimed by the bank be not granted to it and they were

also required to file their written statements within thirty days from the

date of receipt of the summons. They, however, did not show cause

and not filed any written statement within the mandatory period of

thirty days. A division bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court (Jabalpur

Bench) in the case of <Crest Steel and Power Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs

Punjab National Bank= decided on 10.05.2018 and reported as

MANU/MP/0823/2018 has held that the provision of 19(5) of the Act of

1993 prescribing period of thirty days for filing of written statement by

a defendant is mandatory and in tune with the object of the said Act

which is expeditious disposal of bank recovery cases and that period

can be extended only for fifteen days for exceptional reasons to be

recorded by the DRT. Thus the maximum period within which a

defendant can present his written statement to the claim of a bank is

forty five days and once that period expires and written statement is

Page 3 of 10

Misc Appeal No. 44/2020

not filed by a defendant within that period the right to file the written

statement by the concerned defendant gets extinguished. The said

judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court was though challenged

before the Hon9ble Supreme Court but the same was not entertained

and so the judgment of the High Court has attained finality and is

binding on this Tribunal in the absence of any contrary judgment by any

of the jurisdictional High Courts of this Tribunal having been brought to

the notice of this tribunal during the course of arguments.

2. The impugned order dated 21.01.2020 of the DRT declining to

take off the record the belatedly filed written statement and counter

claim of the respondents-defendants is re-produced below:-

Though defendants did not file any reply, they opposed the

application and vehemently contended that the defendants though

Page 4 of 10

Misc Appeal No. 44/2020

made their appearance