Court dismisses petition by Nikhil Poddar against Punjab National Bank, reinforcing the 45-day maximum period for written statement submission under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993.
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has reaffirmed the stringent time constraints imposed under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, for filing written statements in cases of debt recovery. The Division Bench, comprising Justices Subramonium Prasad and Renu Bhatnagar, dismissed the writ petition filed by Nikhil Poddar against the Punjab National Bank. The petitioner sought to challenge the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) order that refused to accept his written statement due to its late submission.
The core issue before the court was whether it possessed the authority to condone delays beyond the statutory limit prescribed under Section 19(5)(i) of the RDBA Act. According to this provision, a written statement must be submitted within 30 days from the date of service of summons, with a permissible extension of up to 15 days in exceptional cases, making a maximum of 45 days. Nikhil Poddar's written statement was filed significantly beyond this period, on November 26, 2019, despite receiving the complete paper-book on September 6, 2019.
The court emphasized that the RDBA Act is a special statute with a distinct limitation regime, designed to ensure the expeditious recovery of debts owed to banks and financial institutions. It highlighted that the strict timelines are mandatory and cannot be relaxed, even on equitable grounds, as the law takes precedence over equity when statutory provisions are clear and unambiguous.
The judgment drew parallels with similar provisions in other statutes, such as the Consumer Protection Act and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, where the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the non-negotiable nature of statutory deadlines to promote swift adjudication.
In dismissing the petition, the court underscored that the delay in filing beyond the 45-day limit could not be condoned under any circumstances, thereby reinforcing the legislative intent of the RDBA Act to facilitate timely resolution of debt recovery cases, which often involve substantial public funds.
This ruling serves as a critical reminder of the importance of adhering to procedural timelines in legal proceedings, particularly in specialized statutes aimed at efficient dispute resolution.
Bottom Line :
Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 Section 19(5)(i) Written statement before DRT must be filed within 30 days from service of summons, extendable only by further period not exceeding 15 days in exceptional cases and special circumstances recorded in writing - Delay beyond total period of 45 days cannot be condoned, Section 5 of Limitation Act excluded by necessary implication as RDBA Act is a special statute intended for expeditious recovery of bank dues.
Statutory provision(s): Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 Section 19(5)(i), Limitation Act, 1963 Sections 5 and 29(2), Constitution of India, 1950 Article 226
Nikhil Poddar v. Punjab National Bank, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2991193
