DRT Cannot Condone Delay in Filing a Written Statement Beyond the Statutory 15-Day Extension.

The petitioner challenged the DRAT’s order dated 1 July 2026 refusing to take his written statement on record because it was filed beyond the time permitted by Section 19(5)(i) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (“RDBA Act”).

The petitioner’s counsel received the complete paper-book on 6 September 2019; the written statement was filed on 26 November 2019, beyond the statutory maximum period of 45 days.

The petitioner argued that delay by the respondent Bank in supplying the paper-book affected the period for filing.

Whether a court may condone delay in filing a written statement beyond the maximum 45-day period under Section 19(5)(i) of the RDBA Act.

Whether the filing period should be calculated from a date later than 6 September 2019 on account of the Bank’s alleged delay in supplying the paper-book.

Section 19(5)(i) of the RDBA Act requires a defendant to file a written statement within 30 days of service of summons and permits the Presiding Officer, in exceptional cases and special circumstances recorded in writing, to extend that period by no more than 15 days.

Sections 5 and 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 were considered; the Court held that the RDBA Act’s prescribed maximum period excludes recourse to Section 5 to condone further delay.

The Court relied on J.J. Merchant v. Shrinath Chaturvedi, Union of India v. Popular Construction Co., Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise v. Hongo India Pvt. Ltd., Druggists Association v. Kalyan Chowdhury, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hili Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., and Anita Garg v. State Bank of India for the principle that statutory outer limits for filing pleadings or appeals are mandatory where the statutory scheme excludes any further extension.

The Court treated the 30-day period and the further maximum 15-day extension under Section 19(5)(i) as a statutory outer limit, consistent with the RDBA Act’s objective of expeditious adjudication and recovery.

Applying the cited authorities, it held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act could not be used to extend the period beyond 45 days.

The record showed that the complete paper-book had been received by the petitioner’s counsel on 6 September 2019; the filing period therefore ran from that date, and the written statement filed on 26 November 2019 was out of time.

It rejected the petitioner’s contention concerning the paper-book, dismissed the writ petition and disposed of any pending applications.