Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
SUPREME ALLOYS vs PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK on 9 October 2026
DEBTS RE(]OyEItY APPf, LL.\T[ I'RII]T:NAL. D[LTII
AppealNo.28l/!026
Ir MA No.l16/2026
Arisirg out ofOA No.178n016 (DRT-I, Delhi)
M/S Supreme Alloys Limited
Putrj,b Nitioml Bank and others
09.r0J026 Hor'ble Dr. Justice Sudhil KrInff Jrin Preseni: Sh. Amit Dhall, Advocate for appellant Sh. Hashmat Nabi, Advocat€ for respondent no. I thrcugh VC
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. The r€spond€nt no.l filed O.A. bearing 110.178/2016 titled a! Pmirb Nrtioml B.rk Y If,/S Supreme AlloF Ltmited and othen which was stated to be puding b€fore DRT-I, D€lhi. DRT-I, Delhi vide judgment datad 2\.02.2019 passed th€ final order and allowed the O.A. bearing no.178/2016. The appellant was impleaded a! defendant no.l .
2. The perusal offinal order dat€d 2l.02,20I9 reflects that ihe d€fenda s including tle appellant appeared thmuSh couns€l but despite availing opportunities, they did not Iil€ their Vriiten Statement and accordingly ihe right to file Writ en Starement was closed on 19. I 2.2016.
3. TIle appellanr b€ing th€ defendant no.l filed M.A. b€eins no.ll6/2016 for recall ofthe order dat€d 21.02.2019. The appellant beine the defendmt no.l also filed application bearins LA. No.l482l2026 for se€king lhe condonation of delay in filhg the M.A. no.l16/2026 which was o.d€r€d to be dismiss€d vide impugned order dat€d 18.08.2026. 4, The perusal of impugned order datd 18.08.2026 r€flects that application bearing I.A. No.1482/2026 was dismissed primarily on the ground lhat the appellet has failed io mention sny cogenr reason for condonation ofdelay in filhs
5. Sh. Amit Dhall, Advocat€ for th€ appellant stated that the pr€sent Original Applicalion was fil€d on 15.03.2026 i.e. after the winding of the order dated 23-02-2016 has already be€n passed by the High Cotlrt of Delhi in CO. pET. 587/2014 asaitrt .he app€llant being the defendant no.l.Therea{ter the windins orde. were rec.lledvid€ order dated 30.05.2025 passed by the High Cou.i of Delhi and lhe Official Liquidator was also discharged. Thereafter Misc. Application b@ins no.l16/2026 was filed on 19.06.2026. It is turther argued that by virtue of Seclion 24 ofthe RDB Act, 1993, the prcvisions of Limiiation Acr, 1963 may be applied lo an application made to DRT-I, Delhi.
6. Sh. ltashmat Nabi, Advocate for lhe respondent no.l aryued that Section 24 of the RDB Act is applicable only to the application which arc made under Section 19 of the RDB Act dd do€s not have any applicarion in rhe case of review applications. At this stage, Sh. Amil Dhall, Advocate s€eks rime to cite c€rain relevant case laws. Let the n€edtul be done till the next dare ofhearing. the mhc. application for recalliry the final order dated 21.02.2019 and turther the DRT-I, Delhi was not having any power to condone the delay under Section 5 of
7. List on 26.10.2026. .-'4 d- (llr. Jrstice Strdhir lium!r.raitr)