Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Delay in Filing Defence/Reply - Courts recognize delays often caused by administrative procedures, holidays, or gathering documents. Such delays are sometimes condoned if sufficient cause is shown, especially when filed within prescribed time limits or with reasonable explanations. For instance, the DRT has condoned delays due to holidays or administrative approvals (2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 2245, 2025 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 2999). However, courts also emphasize strict adherence to timelines, rejecting condonation requests beyond the permissible period (2024 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 413, 2024 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 336).
Power to Condone Delay - The authority of DRTs to condone delays varies. Initially, some courts held that DRTs could condone delays in filing applications like review petitions, but the Supreme Court later clarified that DRTs do not possess such power for review applications (2023 0 Supreme(Bom) 126). Conversely, in other contexts, courts have condoned delays in filing appeals or written statements if justified reasons are provided within a limited period, typically 15 days (2024 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 413, 2024 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 336).
Limitations and Rejections - Courts are generally limited to condoning delays up to 15 days for appeals and written statements. Delays beyond this are rejected, and applications for condonation are dismissed if the delay exceeds this period (2024 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 413, 2024 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 336). For example, where the delay was more than 15 days, the condonation application was rejected, and the appeal or reply was not entertained.
Procedural Flexibility - Courts sometimes show flexibility to promote substantial justice, especially if the delay is minimal and reasons are valid, such as delays caused by administrative processes or late receipt of orders (2025 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 2999). They may also consider whether the delay has caused prejudice or whether the other party has been sufficiently served.
Effect of Delay on Proceedings - If delays are not condoned, the defence or appeal may be barred or dismissed, impacting the right to contest. However, when delays are condoned, the courts proceed to hear the matter on merits, emphasizing the importance of substantial justice over technicalities (2025 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 2999).
Analysis and Conclusion:Courts generally allow condonation of delay in filing defence or replies within a limited period (usually 15 days), provided sufficient cause is shown. Delays beyond this are typically rejected, emphasizing strict adherence to procedural timelines. The power of DRTs to condone delays varies, with some courts having limited or no authority for certain applications like review petitions. Nonetheless, courts may exercise discretion to promote justice, especially when delays are minor and justified, but procedural rules remain paramount to ensure timely resolution of cases.
In the fast-paced world of debt recovery in India, facing proceedings before the can be daunting for defendants. One common challenge is the tight timelines for filing a defence or reply to the original application. But what happens if you're late? Is there an absolute bar, or can the delay be excused?
This article dives into the legal nuances of delay in filing defence or reply to original application in DRT, drawing from key judicial precedents and statutory provisions. We'll explore whether courts have discretion to condone such delays, what constitutes ',' and practical strategies to navigate this issue. Note: This is general information based on case law and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
The Debt Recovery Tribunals operate under the (RDB Act). mandates that a defendant must file a (defence) within from service of the original application, extendable up to in exceptional cases. This strict timeline aims to expedite recovery for banks and financial institutions. However, missing this window doesn't always end your case.
The core question arises: Delay in filing defence or reply to original application in DRT – is it fatal? Indian courts have consistently held that there is to filing a defence post-statutory period. Instead, tribunals and exercise discretion to condone delays if is shown, balancing procedural rigour with principles of . 2022 0 Supreme(Del) 2044
Courts and tribunals draw from , alongside inherent powers under , to condone delays. The RDB Act's timelines are directory rather than mandatory in all scenarios, allowing a liberal approach where justice demands it.
Key judicial stance:- Courts prioritize over technicalities, examining the cause of delay rather than rigid adherence to limits. 2009 1 Supreme 674- Delays due to genuine reasons, mistakes, or circumstances beyond control are typically condoned. For example, administrative hurdles or document gathering can qualify as . 2023 0 Supreme(Bom) 604 2009 1 Supreme 674
In one case, a court condoned a in filing a Civil Revision Application, noting the time taken for gathering documents related to recovery proceedings. The tribunal emphasized a liberal construction of '' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to advance . 2023 0 Supreme(Guj) 233
However, this discretion isn't unlimited. In DRT-specific matters, some rulings underscore stricter enforcement:- Under (i) of the RDB Act, the right to file a cannot exceed from service, and extensions beyond are not permitted. The tribunal correctly closed the right when defendants dilly-dallied. 2025 Supreme(Online)(DRAT) 170
This highlights a tension: while general principles favour condonation, DRT's summary nature demands expedition.
Courts weigh several elements:- Genuine vs. Negligent Delay: errors, like miscommunication or reliance on incorrect advice, favour condonation. Conversely, negligence or dilatory tactics lead to rejection. 1995 0 Supreme(Del) 869- Length of Delay: Shorter delays with strong explanations succeed more often. In a commercial suit analogy, a (within under ) was condoned as prevails over technicalities. 2024 0 Supreme(Bom) 1038- Prejudice to Opposite Party: Minimal impact on the plaintiff strengthens your plea.- Public Interest: Even government bodies can't claim indulgence for indolence. 1995 0 Supreme(Del) 869
Quote from precedent: Delay in filing a can be condoned if the cause is justifiable and not attributable to negligence or intent. 2023 0 Supreme(Bom) 604
These cases illustrate that satisfactory explanation is key – vague reasons like time consumed for gathering documents without proof fail. 2023 0 Supreme(Guj) 233
If facing a delay in DRT:1. File Promptly with Application: Submit your defence alongside a detailed condonation application, supported by affidavits and evidence (e.g., correspondence, medical certificates).2. Emphasize Bona Fides: Highlight unavoidable circumstances, avoiding admissions of negligence.3. Pay Costs: Offer to bear opposite party costs, as seen in condoned cases. 2024 0 Supreme(Bom) 10384. Avoid Tactics: Dilatory moves invite rejection and potential adverse inferences.5. Seek : Request tribunal directions to take the reply on record pending condonation.
Legal practitioners should document everything meticulously to bolster chances.
In summary, while DRT timelines under the RDB Act are stringent, there is no per se bar to late filing of defence or reply. Tribunals may condone delays upon showing , free from negligence or mala fides, prioritizing . 2022 0 Supreme(Del) 2044 2023 0 Supreme(Bom) 604
Key Takeaways:- Act swiftly with strong, evidenced explanations.- Leverage Section 5 Limitation Act and CPC principles.- Be wary of the 45-day cap in strict RDB interpretations. 2025 Supreme(Online)(DRAT) 170- often trumps procedure, but don't test limits.
Facing DRT proceedings? Early professional advice can make all the difference. Stay informed, file responsibly, and protect your rights.
References (select excerpts):- 2022 0 Supreme(Del) 2044, 2023 0 Supreme(Bom) 604, 2009 1 Supreme 674, 1995 0 Supreme(Del) 869, 2023 0 Supreme(Guj) 233, 2025 Supreme(Online)(DRAT) 170, 2024 0 Supreme(Bom) 1038, 2016 0 Supreme(All) 4173
#DRTIndia, #DebtRecoveryLaw, #CondoneDelay
The relevant extract of the application setting out the explanation of delay is reproduced below:- “1. It is most respectfully submit that the respondents/State of MP is filing its reply to the Original Application filed by the applicant. ... It is submitted that since the administrative approvals have to be taken for finalization of the reply and also in between there were Dusshera Holidays, therefore, there is delay occurred in filing of reply.” 25....
The said application for delay condonation in filing Review Application was rejected by the DRT only on the ground that DRT did not have power to condone the delay in filing the Review Application. ... Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that DRT does not have any power to condone delay in filing Review Application. ... The said application for condonation of delay in filing the Review Applicatio....
It was therefore submitted that there is a sufficient cause to condone the delay of 265 days caused in filing the Civil Revision Application. 3.3. ... The classic example is the difference in approach of courts to applications for condonation of delay in filing an appeal and applications for condonation of delay in refiling the appeal after rectification of defects. ... delay is explained in a very casual manner by stating the only reason that the time was consumed for gathering docume....
Merchant case (supra) followed the field and therefore, we are agreed with the view that the District Forum can grant a further period of 15 days to the opposite party for filing of version or reply and not beyond that. ... Accordingly, right to file written statement was righty closed by the DRT-I, Hyderabad. No ground was made out for condoning the delay and for taking the written statement filed by the Appellants on record. ... including claim for set-off under sub-section (6) or a counter- claim under sub-section (8)....
As the cost has been paid, though with delay, for which the condonation has been sought. The delay is condoned and the reply is taken on record. 4. Ld. ... In the instant case, we find that the Corporate Debtor was given sufficient opportunity of filing its reply to the amended Petition. The Corporate Debtor filed its reply to the original petition, which has been taken on record and considered by this Tribunal. ... The Financial Creditor had sufficiently disclosed th....
We are of the view that the delay is beyond 15 days in filing the Appeal and our jurisdiction is only to condone 15 days delay. We cannot condone the delay as prayed in the application. Delay condonation applicaiton is rejected. Memo of Appeal is also rejected. ... ORDER (Hybrid Mode) 09.04.2024 : In these two Appeals, the applications have been filed for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal. Order impugned was passed on 08.12.2023 and the Ap....
We are of the view that the delay is beyond 15 days in filing the Appeal and our jurisdiction is only to condone 15 days delay. We cannot condone the delay as prayed in the application. Delay condonation applicaiton is rejected. Memo of Appeal is also rejected. ... ORDER (Hybrid Mode) 09.04.2024 : In these two Appeals, the applications have been filed for condonation of delay in filing the Appeal. Order impugned was passed on 08.12.2023 and the Ap....
As the cost has been paid, though with delay, for which the condonation has been sought. The delay is condoned and the reply is taken on record. 4. Ld. ... In the instant case, we find that the Corporate Debtor was given sufficient opportunity of filing its reply to the amended Petition. The Corporate Debtor filed its reply to the original petition, which has been taken on record and considered by this Tribunal. ... No. 1367 of 2020, a decree was passed by the #HL_STA....
In the present case, on the expiry of initial 30 days period for filing written statement, the defence automatically stood struck off and there was nothing for the DRT to pass any separate order and that, too, after many months of expiry of initial period of 30 days. ... Under Section 19(8) and (9) of the DRT Act read with Order 8 Rule 6A(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, a counter claim can be raised in respect of a cause of action that has arisen before or after the filing of the suit/application for re....
He has accordingly, submitted that the delay in filing the Written Statement be condoned. 7. Ms.Isha Sawant, the learned Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff has tendered an Affidavit-in-Reply dated 1st February, 2024 which is taken on record. ... . - By this Interim application the Applicants/Original Defendants have sought condonation of delay in filing Written Statement and for directions to the Registry to take the Written Statement on record. 2. ... There is an objection to the gra....
The Tribunal is empowered to decide all the issues pertaining to the recovery of loan. Therefore, this Court is of the view that having taken similar defence before the DRT as well as DRAT, filing of the present suit on the same ground by the original plaintiff is only to stall the proceedings before the Tribunal, which is nothing but abuse of process of law.
The Appellants has the knowledge of the sale notice dated 8th July, 2014 which was challenged before the Hon'ble High Curt. The filing of RTI application on the basis of which information was received by the Appellants on 31st October, 2014 and thereafter, meeting the Counsel on 22nd November, 2014 and filing the securitization application before the DRT below on 11th December, 2014 cannot be treated as sufficient reason to condone the delay in this matter.
This Court by order dated 23-7-2014 dismissed the said writ petitions with liberty to the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy. 7. The petitioners have challenged the said sale by filing an appeal in IR No. 133 of 2014 before the DRT. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed writ petitions before this Court in W.P. Nos. 19551 to 19555 of 2014. Since there was delay in filing the appeal, the DRT dismissed the appeal.
All the same, no delay was caused by the accused in filing application for calling the defence witnesses. In such a situation, this Court deems it fit to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction envisaged under section 482 of CrPC for issuing proper directions: “Considering the above facts allowing the petition partly, setting aside the order of trial Court as well as revisional Court as stated above, it is ordered that the accused is permitted to produce witnesses Bholaram and Sanjay Tiwari in his defence. 7. The order of lower Court as well revisional Court refusing the aforesai....
On 3. 8. 2002 the Arbitrator condoned the delay in filing the claim and granted time to the petitioner to file the statement of defence before 19. 8. 2002 and rejoinder before 3. 9. 2002 and documents by 6. 9. 2002 and adjourned the matter to 9. 8. 2002 and rejoinder before 3. 9. 2002 and documents by 6. 9. 2002 and adjourned the matter to 9. On 3. 8. 2002 the Arbitrator condoned the delay in filing the claim and granted time to the petitioner to file the statement of defence before 19.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
