M/S RIDHA FASHION & OTHERS vs BANK OF BARODA on 7 October 2026

DtrBTS RtrCOVERY APPELLATtr TRIBUNAL! DELHI Mhc.AppeatNo.335/2026 Arisirg out ofOA No.39,2025 (DRT-Ir, Dc|[i) M/s Ridha Faslion & others BankofBarod, 07.10J026 Hor,bte Dr. Jusrice Sudhir Kuln,r JriD Presenr Sh. pushpinder Sineh, Advocate fo. appeflanrs ttmugh VC I his mstter istaken up brough Hybrid hearing.

r. The respondenr filed O.A. be.rins no. 39/2025 rirled as Brnk of Baro.t. v. Ridhr F.lhion & otheN which is stated to be pending before DRT_rr, Delhi. The DRT-II, Delhi vid€ impugned order dated 13.07.2026 which is under chall€nge has closed ihe opportunity ofthe app€llant who were defendants in the O.A. beding no. 39n025 ro fit€ the witten statanent. The order dated 13.07.2026 is reproduced as unde.: Ttc t d. Coul.et for rppltcrtrr brtrtr hm iu bDined itrt tte coov of OA n n.r book wrs luppri.d on 27.1.202s bur rhc der.d,;Jh;;i f,iJ;"" v6ii; lli:1TL,1".*-.1*l dfl.d r]0i.2026. rhe rypricrnr brnk r.3 prorid.d

n. copy or uA p.p.r boot oD 27.1t.2015. rbc d.fendrtrt" trs nor nr"i Ws rirr dfl..

- Therefo.*, rhe opporrudty of it. d.f.odrtrE lo nre rn wS r rreijy cldcd.

2. On perusal ofthe impuSned order daied 13.07.2026 reflects that the appellants have rcceived the copy of the OA paper book on 27. | .2025 b\t ri| t3 .07 .2026 they have nor filed wrinen statement. Th€ Counsel for rhe appellads afrer r€feEing g.ounds of rhe appeat argued thal the app€llant no. 3 Sh. Mavank SabhaRel was rcsidins out of India during the retevant per;oa ana coura no coo.dinate and insrrucr the Couns€l to finatise rle written statemenr within the stipulated time. It is turrher argued that th€ inpugned order was passed in a mechanical manner and was a non-speakins order prss€d in odsinal application ard cannot sustain on the facts s6ted by the appellants who arc having substantial defence. In rhe prcs€ht appeal ir is prayed rtat the impugned order be set,aside and the appeltants beinS the def€ndanrs in the original application be siven an opportunity to file th€ written sratement. It.p No.6

-2-

4. Section 19(5Xi) plovides that the defendant has to present the writien statement of his defence within a period of 30 days from the date of seruice of summons along with original documents or rrue copies lhereoa The proviso to rhe said section further provides that if the defendant fails ro file the wr;lten sratemenl within the said period ofihiny days, il can be extended in exceptional and special circumsrznces to be recorded in writins for a period not exceeding 15 days. Seclion l9(5)(i) ofthe Act reads as under- (sxi) tn€ def.trdaht shrll pithiD a pedod of thirty days from the drte of renice of summons, prsent . writlen itatemerl olhis defen.e ir.tuditrg ctein for 3el.orl urder sub-.ection (6) or r couoterctrim und.r sub{ectior (8), ir rny, ,trd such writtetr st t menr sh.lt be rsompmied with origind documetrt' or rrue copis tbereofwilh the lerve ofthe TribuDrl, retied on by lhe deferdut in hls defer.€: file thc srirr.n stnienrcnt nithnr Otliccr .r{}. h €rceDtion.l tas€s in *riting crtend th. siid pcri l dl}s io filo ih€ srifi.n slat.'.€.i Proridod lhxr $ho. lno dcfcn i t liils to lhr sxid Dcriod ol lhirly d,Js, ih( l1.rsidirg rnd in slccirlcircuorstanc.t to br record.d br mch lurrh.r Ii..nid troi.x(ccding fifi.cn

5. It is refleding that the defendanls have to fite wr;tten statement within maximum period of45 days. The issue whether rhere can be turther extension beyo.d 45 days to file sritten statenent was subject matrer of consideration of superior couns. The High Coun of Delhi in Anita carg and others V Srate B8nk of lDdia, 2021 SCC Onl"ine Del 4311 in para 32 observed that Section l9(5)(i) ofthe Act does nor provide for forfeiture ofrisht io file wriuen srarement if it is not filed within the srpulated tine or rhe extended iime but the written slalement filed beyond the stipulaied time or exrended time ca.nor be brought on record. The relevant pam 32 ofthejudgment is reproduced as underr

32. TnouSh, secliotr l9(5)(i) does not, in lerms, provide for the forreiture of lle dght to file tb€ srirteb stlt€o€nl. tf it is not lited within the stipulsred rime! or the exteded time rhrt coutd md mry be Cnnted, in our vi;w, $. .ons€quen.e sould be th. srme, I the Britler st temenl fited blvond the eiipul.ted rime, or ertcoded iim. $hich could tegoly be Cr.n.ed for th.t purp@e, c.Dtrol be brought on record. The intentior of the parlirment cm b. gathered oot orty from tbe Slxremenr of Objects .bd Reslons sel out h€reinabove, bul llso from the out.r tinit of tim€, fo. rhich erteNiotr may, in r dB€aiog osc by rollof,itrg th€ guidelt.ctrid down itr lhe Sectiotr. be "3- gratrl€d. The proc€editrgs b€fore the DRT ire dso proce€dingr arising oor of .ommercid dcrlings rnd t[G dispui.s rr€ comnercid diiptrt€s. Ir rould nol strnd 1o r€Non, tbar whit€ th. p3rthm€nt sougtrt to edorc. 3trict tim.lines for cxpedltious disposrls ofconder.iol dispures by €nlctitrs the Cofrmercial Courts Act, il did nor do so i. rBpect ofdisputes oftbe srne tdnd, d€cided by lhc,Debt Recolery T.ibumh. The onty re$on for trot incorporrling tb; forf.iture clause itr S.crior t9 is, tbat rhe exisring prcvision contain.d io S€ctiotr l9le.ds to tne s.me corctusion.

4. The Supreme Court in New IDdh Assurance Co. Ltd, V Hi[i Multipurpose Cold Slorase (P) Ltd.! (2020) 5 SCC 757, considered the issue wheihe. the slipulated time or exlended rime for filins rhe writlen statement under the Consumer Protecfion Act, 1986 which is similar to Section l9(5)(i) ofthe Acr can be exlended ornor and obseredthat the lime limil specified fo. frling the response to the complai.t is m daiory and not d;ecrorf. The relevant para l3 otrhe said judgment is .eproduced as under!

13. Once cons€qrences $e provided for nol fiting lh€ respons€ to the compldnt within the time spsified, md il is funher providcd thar proceeditrgs corplying wiu tte procedure ldd down under sub{ectiond (t) aod (2) of Sktiotr 13 of the Cotrsumer prorecliotr A.t sb.ll trot be .r[ed in qu€stiotr in any cotrrtotr rhe ground that th€ principt.s of trrturrt justi.e b.!e mt been complied sith! tb€ itrt.briotr oflhe tegistatu.e is rbsoturely cler thrr the provision of strb-sectiotr (2Xr) of Se.rior t3 of the Act ib specirying lhe tim.limil for filirg the rqponse lo th€ .omptstni is mandatory, and nor

5. The lesal proposition as laid down by the Suprcme Court was tunher rc- afiimed and rei.erated in Drddy's Buitden privot€ Limited & another V M.nilhr Bhirgrws & another, (2021) 3 Supreme Court Cases 669 and Dr. viily Dlxtt & otheru V Prg.dal Xrilhnr Mohar & oth€rs, 2024 SCC Online sc 2279.

6. This T.ibunal in Misc. App€al bearing no.l33l2024 titled ,s Nikhit poddir v. Purjab natiord Bank which was decid€d on 01.07.2026 after referins vanous case laws held that there is no provision in the RDB Acl which permits DRT ro condone lhe delay beyond 45 days in filing the writen slalement. The order dated 01.07.2026 was challenged before the Delhi High Court in W?(C) 13671/2026 titled as Nikhil Poddrrthrough his duty conlritured rttorneyMr. Devender -+ Kumsr Sllrlmr V. Punjrb National Brnk through its Authoriled Repr6entstiye md the Delhi High Court vide the judgnent dated 23.09.2026 atso observed dlat the delay beyond lhe mdimum period of 45 days as prescribed under Section l9(5)(i) ofrhe Act cannot be condoned by my Coun.

7. Il is appdent from various pronouc€ments ofthe superior courrs thal Secdon 13 allhough in the conGxt of the Consumer Prolection Act. 1986 whi.h is simitar to the provisions contained in Section l9(5xi) of the Act, the period of45 days cannot be exlended for filing the written statemenr by ihe defendant. The cousel for the appellana could not point out ey sFcific legal prcvision wh€re rhe fiting of Written Statement can be extended beyond 45 days. There is no iregutarity or illegalily in the impusned order passed by DRT which wananls any interference by th;s Triblml. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. n sl- ,..--

(l) r. Justicc Strdhir kumf ,hir)