Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
RANJIT PLASTIC INDUSTRIES PVT LTD vs BANK OF BARODA on 16 September 2026
**DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI**
**Misc. Appeal No. 212/2022
Arising out of O.A. No. 626/2017 (DRT-III, Delhi)**
**Item No. 20**
**M/s Ranjit Plastic Industries Pvt. Ltd. & others
V.
Bank of Baroda**
**16.09.2026 Hon'ble Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain**
Present: Sh. Dhananjay Kr. Singh, Advocate for Appellants.
Sh. Navneet Kumar, Advocate for Respondent bank This matter is taken up through Hybrid hearing.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. 1. The respondent Bank of Baroda filed OA No. 626/2017 titled as **Bank of Baroda vs. M/s Ranjit Plastic Industries Pvt. Ltd. & others** which was pending before DRT-III, Delhi and is now stated to be pending before DRT-I, Delhi.
2. 2. DRT-III, Delhi vide order dated 08.09.2017 ordered for issuance of notice to the defendants, i.e., the appellants. The appellants, being the defendants, appeared to have been served by way of publication but did not appear, hence, DRT-III, Delhi vide order dated 19.05.2018, has proceeded the appellants as *ex-parte*.
3. 3. The appellants filed an application vide Diary No. 482/2026 dated 15.03.2026 for setting aside the *ex-parte* order dated 19.05.2018. DRT-III, Delhi vide order dated 06.08.2022 has dismissed the application filed by the appellants for setting aside the *ex-parte* order dated 19.05.2018 on the ground of limitation, as it was filed beyond the period of 30 days from the date of the order i.e. 19.05.2018.
4. 4. Sh. Dhananjay Singh, Advocate for the appellants argued that the appellants were never served with the notice of the OA either by ordinary process or by way of publication, as alleged by the respondent.
5. Sh. Navin Kumar, Advocate for the respondent stated that the appellants refused to accept the notice, and thereafter they were ordered to be served by way of publication.
6. Sh. Dhananjay Singh, Advocate for the appellants stated that the period of limitation should be counted from the date of knowledge, which was not done by DRT-III, Delhi in the impugned order dated 06.08.2022.
7. After considering all facts, the impugned order dated 06.08.2022 is set aside, and the application for setting aside the *ex-parte* order dated 19.05.2018 filed vide Diary No. 482/2026 is remanded back for fresh consideration now by the DRT-I, Delhi after considering the arguments raised on behalf of the appellant including the issue of counting the period of limitation from the date of knowledge, as well as on the merits.
8. OA pertains to the year 2017 as such, DRT-I, Delhi is directed to decide the application filed vide Diary No. 482/2026 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order.
9. The copy of this order be sent to DRT-I, Delhi for information and compliance.
----- **(Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain)** **Chairperson**
-P\$