Delhi High Court rules that the 45-day maximum period for filing a written statement before DRT under Section 19(5)(i) of the RDB Act cannot be extended or condoned by courts.
The Delhi High Court has held that the statutory period prescribed for filing a written statement before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 cannot be extended beyond the maximum period of 45 days.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Renu Bhatnagar ruled that courts do not have the power to condone a delay beyond the outer limit specifically prescribed under Section 19(5)(i) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act).
Background of the Case
The ruling came in a petition filed by Nikhil Poddar against Punjab National Bank in connection with recovery proceedings before the DRT.
The petitioner challenged an order of the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT), which had refused to take his written statement on record on the ground that it was filed beyond the statutory period.
The complete paper book relating to the recovery proceedings had been received by the petitioner’s counsel on 6 September 2019. However, the written statement was ultimately filed on 26 November 2019.
The petitioner sought to justify the delay and contended that the period prescribed under the RDB Act could be extended by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Statutory Time Limit Under Section 19(5)(i)
Section 19(5)(i) of the RDB Act provides that a defendant is required to file a written statement within 30 days from the date of service of summons.
The provision permits the Presiding Officer of the DRT to extend the period by a further period of up to 15 days, but only where exceptional circumstances and special reasons exist and are recorded in writing.
Consequently, the statutory framework permits a maximum period of 45 days for filing the written statement.
Delhi High Court Rejects Further Extension
The High Court rejected the argument that the delay beyond 45 days could be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
The Court treated the RDB Act as a special legislation containing a specific procedural timeline. According to the Bench, when Parliament has expressly fixed an outer limit for filing a written statement, that period cannot be enlarged by resorting to the general provisions of the Limitation Act.
The Court also relied upon several decisions of the Supreme Court concerning statutory time limits and observed that where a special statute prescribes a specific maximum period, courts cannot extend that period contrary to the legislative mandate.
45 Days Is the Absolute Outer Limit
The Court noted that the expression “not exceeding fifteen days” appearing in Section 19(5)(i) places a clear restriction on the DRT’s power to grant additional time.
In the present case, the complete paper book had been received on 6 September 2019. Therefore, the maximum permissible period expired on 21 October 2019.
Since the written statement was filed only on 26 November 2019, it was clearly beyond the statutory outer limit.
The Court therefore found that the delay could not be condoned and dismissed the writ petition.
Significance of the Judgment
The decision reinforces the importance of complying strictly with procedural timelines in proceedings before the DRT.
The judgment makes it clear that a defendant cannot assume that delay in filing a written statement will automatically be condoned on the ground of sufficient cause or by relying upon the general condonation provisions of the Limitation Act.
For borrowers and other defendants facing proceedings before the DRT, the ruling highlights the need to:
- monitor the date of service of summons carefully;
- obtain the complete case papers without delay;
- prepare the written statement within the prescribed period;
- seek an extension within the permissible 15-day period wherever exceptional circumstances genuinely exist; and
- avoid relying on subsequent applications for condonation after the statutory outer limit has expired.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s ruling provides an important clarification on the procedural discipline required in DRT proceedings. The 30-day period for filing a written statement may be extended by the DRT by a maximum of 15 days in exceptional circumstances, but the total period cannot ordinarily exceed 45 days.
The judgment serves as a reminder that where a special statute prescribes a specific outer limit, courts cannot use general limitation provisions to override that legislative restriction.
Case Details
Case: Nikhil Poddar v. Punjab National Bank
Court: Delhi High Court
Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 13671 of 2026
Provision: Section 19(5)(i), Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993
Judgment: Delhi High Court