Abhijit Kumar Pandey vs BANK OF BARODA on 7 October 2026

_ Miqc. Appeat No. 200/2024 An$ng our ofTA No. j06/2022 tDRT-t, Dethi) Abhijir Kum,r pardet & orheh v Benk of Baroda 07.10.2026 Hor,bte Dr. Jusrice Sudhi. KumarJrin Pres€nr: Sh. Rahul Gupr4 Advocat€ for appelanrs through VC Ms. Manisha Aggdwal, Advocate for Responderr rhroush VC This maner is raken up rhrough Hybrid hearing. I. The respondent fited O.A. bearins TA Baroda V Abhijit Xuma. pindey and before the DRT- I , Delhi. Df, BTS RECOVERY APPELLATI TRIBUNAL. DELHI It.n No. t.l bearing no. 306/2022 titles as others which h sraled !o be

2. The appellants fited IA b€aring no. 4685D023 for condonalion ofdelay in fiting the $ritten sratement. It was contend€d on behalfofrhe defendants no I & 2 in rhe Odginal Application that the copy of th€ OA was supptied ro the def€ndant lhrough WhatsApp on 12.0 r .2023 and ttuough post on 03.01 .2023. Ther€after, rhe u.?it!en sra&meni was filed on b€hatf ofthe deiendants no.t and 2 in ihe OA on 17.11.2023. h was turther stated that the appellant! being the defendants hav€ engag€d Sh. D. K Ahuja, Advoca& as he assur€d them for taking rhe proper care ofTransfer Application bearing no. 306/2022. However the said Advocate did not file the wdtten striem€nt within rhe stipulated time.

3. 'tlE IA no. 4685/2023 was conterted by the r€sponded by strting rhat the writlm statemenr was not liled within rhe stipulared rime as p€r Section l9(5xi) of the RDDBI Act and ac.ordingly, it was payed thai IA No. 4685/2023 was dismissed-

4. The DRT-I, Dethi vide impugned order dated 21.05.2024 dismissed the application by observing rhat the delay of279 days in fiting the written sraremenr by the appellants b€ing th€ def€ndants carDot br ofrhe orderdated 21.05.2024 i" *p-dr""d *,;;",: ed rhe opemtive poriion frti:#t'1,,,,,,"t.lfiil,:*ifi it j*[hT#**,,.fr ff 5, Th€-appellanrs being agsrieved filed the pres€nt Miscellaneous Appeat b€aring no.200/2024. Durins ihe course of the arguments the app€llants refen€d the para no. 2 to 5 of rhe grounds of th€ appeat and stated that the appelants tras engagea Sh. D. K. Ahuja, Advocate to repres€nr rheir case before the DRT,I, Detfii who assured th€ spp€llants io rake proper care wilh due diiigence of rhe Origj.al Application. The appeflants staled rhar th€y w€re served th€ copy of i.be Original Applicarion ttuough whalsApp on 12.01.2023 which was not €ffectivety served as p€r Rules and fie Acr. The Ap€ anE fij€d the wrinen sratement o, i, ,, *r-r, the app€llants have tu faith in rheir Couns€l bul the said Counsel did nor tale pmper oare ofrhe Original Applicarion. Th€ app€Iants atso came to know fiat Sh. D. K, Ahuja, Advocate has atso expircd and tlerearer th€ appeltants engased a new Couns€t and ffled the Intertocurory Application for condonation of d€lay in filing the witr€n submissions. The appellads in the grounds of th€ appeat also mentioned that the irnpugned oder was pass€d after overlooking rhe material on record and DRT has not passed any reasoned order while dismissing the I.A. bearing no. 4685/2023. It wss tu(her argued that the present case does fall within the exceptional case and sp€cial circrunstances in delaying the filing of wriflen stateinent is liable to be condorcd. Also challenged the impugned order dated 2 L05.2024 and ir *"s prayed ttEt rhe impugned order be s€i-aside and the delay in filine the written statemeht in Transfer Apptication bearing no. 306/2022 be

6. The r€spondent filed .eply wherein ir is stated that rhe appelants being rhe dcfendant wer€ served wilh the copy of the OA on 03.01.2023 through speed-post but filed the w xen statement on 17.11.2023. Ille r€spondent also denied other allegatioos. It was ffgued that the pr€sent app€al be dismissed.

10. It is reflecting rhat the respond€nt fited IA b€aring no. 4685/2023 in TA No. 306/2022. The DRT-I, Delhi vide order dated t5.1t.2022 directed for effective s€pice upon the respondents being the defendan erc., rhe appera did not nise any "il"."IJilT:",":y#:T: proc€edings held on 3 O.0l . 2023, 24.03.2023, 25 ,0E.2023. However, the appejlarls filed the wi$en statement on I7.I L202i

ll. Seclion t9(5xi) provides rhat the defenda has to present the written statement of hh defence within a period of j0 days 6om rhe dale of s€rvice of summons along with original documents or true copies ther€oi. The prcviso to the said section funher provides that if the defendant fails to file the liitlen starement wilhin the sajd p€riod of thirry days, ir cm be extended in ex.eprional and special circumsrances to be recorded in wrnins for a period nol exceeding t5 days. Section I 9(5Xi) of rhe Acl reads as under:- Section 19. (5xiJ_the.defetrdrDl lhrtt wiihin a prriod of thirry dals from rhe date of serlrce ot summon$ presebr, eriflen srlt€n "r"i- r*,",-.n,,,i". ",r;;;;i;il'X"li""i HffiilTJ::Ili: secliotr (81. if,ryt and sucrr writren rratemenr slrrr t" *-rp"rr"a *]il, o,gnrt d{cument! or rrre copies rrereof sirh rhe t.r," "f ;h.J;;;;;i: retied on by the defetrdrtrt in his def.n..: Provided thrr wherc drc defendrnl faih ro tite ihe wrilren statemert :",jlX"r_o:,:1'o period or rhir.) d0)s, rh; presidins om""..-,i..i, excepootr.t cr.es lnd in sp.cirt circumsrances ro be *-"a"a m ".iii"q erterd rhe srid period by such funher period nor er*.ai"g nii*"a'"yi to file the wrihen rtatemenr ofhis defencei

12. It is refl€ding rhat the defendants have ro file writren $abment within maximum period of45 days. The issue whether there ca. be tunher extension be)ond 45 days 0o fite trrinen stalemenr was qubjecr mauer of considerstion of superior courrs. The High Cou.t of Deihi in Anitr c.rg .nd orheN V Ste.e BaDk of India, 2021 SCC Online Del 4lll in paE 32 obseNed thal Seclion l9(5)(i) of Are Act does not prodde for forfeiture of righfto file witlen srarement if ir is noi filed with;n rhe stipulaled lime or the extended time but rhe wririen slalement filed beyond the stipulated time or extended time carDot be brouaht on record. The relevmt pam 32 of the judgmenr is reproduced as under!

32. Though, Section l9(5)(i) does not, in ferms, provide for the forfeilure of the right to file the wrirten statement. tf ir is not filed rrithin the stipulated tiDe, or tle extended lime that coutd ard nay be granted, in our view, the cotrsequeDce woutd be the srme, as the writte;strtement filed beyond the stiputit€d time, or exrended tiDe which coutd legaly be gmnred tor lt.t purpose, cannol be brorghr otr record. The itrte;rion of lh€.P-qrlirnent c!n be grrhered nor ont, from rhe Srrtement of Obieds and Reasons set ont hereiDabove, but iho fron the outer timit of tine, for_wlich qt€nsion nry, in r deseriiDg c.se by {ouowing rhe guidetin; laid down in the Section, be gratrred. The proceedings Urore ite onr are iho proceedings adsiDg ourofcommercirt deatiDgs lnd the disputes rre comDercial disputes. It woutd not stand to reason. thar whit; th€ Parlianent soughl lo €nforce stricr liDetines for exp€dftious disposah of commercirl disputes by enactiDg rhe Commerciat Courts Act, it did rot do so ir respect of dispures of lhe same kind. decided bv the Debr Recorer) Tribunals. The onh rerson for nor incorporaring rhe forfeiture clause itr Section l9 ir, thr. rhe existitrs provisio;contai;ed in Section l9leads to the srme conctusion.

13. The Supreme Court in New Irdin AssnnDce Co. Lid. V HiIi Muttipurpose Cold S.onge (P) Ltd,, (2020) 5 SCC 757, considered the issue whether the stipulated time or exlended rime for filing rhe wri$en statement under the Consumer P.orection Act, 1986 which is simild ro Section l9(5xi) ofthe Act can be extended or not and obseNed that ihe time l;mit specified for filing the response lo the complaint is ma.datory and no! direclory. The relevant para ll ofthe said judsmenl is reproduced as under:

33. Once coDsequenes are provided for not titing rh€ response to rne complaint withiD the time specified, rrd it is fnrther p;ovided that proceedirgs conplyirg with the procedure taid down und; sub-secrions

(l) and (2) of Section 13 of the Consumer protection Act shalt nor be (alled in quesfior in an) courr on the groutrd rhat lhe principtes of narural jusrice have not been comptied sith, the inte;tion ot th( legishrm is-abslureh cte{r rhri the prorision of sub-secrion {2)ta) of Selion l3 ot_rhe Acr in specifyitrS the timetimil tor fiting rhe responre to theconphiDt is mardrtory, rnd nordirecaory.

14. The legal proposition as laid down by ihe Supreme Courr was funher re, affinned and reiterated in Daddyt Buitders privrte Linited & another V Manisha Bhargawi & another, (2021) 3 Supreme Cour Cases 669 and Dr. Vijay Dixit & others V prgadrt Krishna Mohan & orhen,2024 SCC Online sc 2219.

15- This Tribunal in Misc. Appeal bearing no.l3 3/2024 titled as Nikhit poddrrV. Punirb irtional Bark which was decided on 01.07.2026 after referdns veious csse laws held that there is no provision in the RDB Act lvhich pemiis DRT to condone the delay beyond 45 days in filin8 the writlen star€ment. The order dated 01.07.2026 was chatlenged b€fore the Delhi High Coud in Wp(C) 1367r/2026 tilled as Nikhil Poddar through his duly constituted ,ftoroey Mr. Devender Kumar Shrrms V. Punjlb N.rion.t Biak throuah it Aurhorised Represert.tive and the Delhi High Court vide the judsment dated 23.09.2026 atso observed that the delay b€yond the maximum period of 45 days as prescribed uder Se.tion l9(5xi) of the Act cannot be condoned by any Coun.

16. It is apprent from veious pronouncements ofthe superior couns that Seclion 13 althouSh in rhe context ofthe Consumer proreclion Act. 1986 which is simitar to ihe provisions contained in Section l9(5)(i) of the Act, the period of 45 days cannot be extended for filing rhe wri$en staiemenl by the defendars. There is bo force in the arguments advanced by the appellants at it does nol appeal to the rea.on that due to the previous Counsel Sh. D. K. Ahuja, who has already expired cannot file the wrinen starement within rhe stipulated time. The appellanis did nol dispule that th€re was a delay of279 days in filing the mifien stateme which is beyond from the stipulated iime in filjng the Mitten statement as per the Section l9(5X, of the ITDDBI Acl There js no inegutari, d ill€gality in $e impusned order passed by DRT which wananrs any interfer€nce by this Tribunat. Hence, the -> ,,}- ,