BESTECH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. IDBI BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition impugns the order dtd. 4/4/2019 passed by the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal ('DRAT') in Misc. Appeal Mo. 145/2019, dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the order of the learned Debt Recovery Tribunal ('DRT') in O.A. No. 233 of 2014, whereby the petitioner's right to file written statement was closed on account of it not being filed within the statutorily permissible time. The petitioner's application for condonation of delay was not considered.

(2.) On 25/2/2019, the learned DRT observed, inter-alia, as under: Heard, record has been thoroughly perused. In the present matter Ms. Anshul Bahal and Mr. Dincur Bajai appeared regularly on behalf of defendant and put appearance since, 16/10/2015 but despite, repeated adjournment WS not filed accordingly, Ld. Incharge of this Tribunal, vide, order dtd. 9/5/2017 closed the right to file WS of the defendants. It is a matter of fact that WS has to be filed within 30 days, inspite of that in the present matter already sufficient opportunity was given to the defendants as there were putting regular appearance since 16/10/2015 therefore there is no ground that the previous counsel of the defendants not informed and it is equal responsibility of the defendants to aware of the proceeding. Therefore, no ground for allowing the present application, accordingly, the present I.A. stand dismissed. ..."

(3.) The said order was impugned before the learned DRAT, which has upheld the same and recorded, inter-alia, as under: "... It is not being disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the written statement was not presented before the DRT within the statutory period of 30 days as prescribed under Sec. 19(5) of the RDDBFI Act. It is also not disputed that no request was made within the 30 days period for extension of time by further 15 days to enable the appellant to file the written statement. Under Sec. 19(5) of the Act, if request for extension of time for filing written statement is made, the DRT is empowered to extend the time but only by a further period of 15 days and nothing beyond that. 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. The statute has created a bar against filing of written statement by a defendant in the O.A. once initial 30 days period expires and no extension is sought. In a recent judgement passed by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s Crest Steel and Power Private Limited & Ors. vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors. (Misc. Petition No.2271/2018, decided on 10/5/2018) also it has been categorically held that the DRT has no power to extend the period for filing of the written statement, therefore, whether or not the appellant's earlier counsel, if at all he was grossly negligent, had caused damage to the interest of the appellant resulting in striking off the defence of the appellant in the O.A., that fact is totally irrelevant. The proceedings under Sec. 19 of the RDDBFI Act have to be finalised within a period of six months and in case such prayers, as is made in the present case by the appellant, are entertained casually, the entire purpose of prescribing outer time limit for disposal of the O.A. will be defeated. ..."