Debts Recovery Tribunals and Appellate Tribunals
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK vs M/s PEACOCK MEDIA LTD on 23 October 2023
23/10/2023 Ex.
No.
Before Presiding Officer Dr. Rekha G. Dhakar, DRT-1, Mumbai.
Roznama in TA 1818 of 2016
Punjab National Bank Vs M/s Peacock Media Ltd Next date
Advocate Huda Qureshi i/b K. K. Associates appeared for the Applicant.
Advocate Tanvi Darji a/w Alroy Gonsalvas i/b Bhave & Co. appeared for the Defendant No. 4.
IA No. 276/2023
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
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. By way of the present IA, the Defendant No. 4 is praying to set aside the order dated 13/01/2023 passed by this Tribunal.
2. Ld. Counsel for Defendant No. 4 submits that on 12/09/2022 the matter was listed before Ld. Registrar for filing a written statement but he did not file the written statement as Defendant No.4 was under the impression that the matter is going to be settled and Defendant No.4 will be exempt with alleged liability. However on 13/01/2023 this Tribunal closed the opportunity for filing the WS by the Defendant No.4.
3. He also submits that the Defendant No.4 resigned from the directorship of the Defendant No.1 Company in the year 2011 and it was communicated by the Defendant No.1 Company to the Applicant Bank and requested that the guarantee of Defendant No.4 be substituted by the other person however, despite the said fact, the Applicant filed the present OA and claiming dues against the Defendant No.4 in the capacity of guarantor thus he submits that the Defendant No. 4 is having a good case on merit therefore, the order dated 13.01.2023 may be set aside and the Defendant No. 4 may be allowed an opportunity to file written statement.
4. Pre Contra, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant of OA vehemently objected to the present IA and submits that the present IA is only a dilatory tactic of the Defendant No.4 with an aim to frustrate the recovery of the Bank thus, the present IA may be dismissed.
5. Heard both sides on the present IA.
6. Record reveals that this Tribunal issued summons to the Defendants including the Defendant No.4 on 09.01.2018. The notices were sent to the Defendant No. 4 which was duly served upon the Defendant No. 4 on 19.01.2018 as per the speed post AD Card receipt and tracking report filed by the Applicant (Exb.28), whereas written statement is not filed by the Defendant No. 4 within 30 days from the receipt of the summons. Thereafter, the Defendant No. 4 appeared in person on 12/02/2018 and also on 16/04/2018. However, no written statement has been filed by Defendant No. 4.
7. Record further reveals that since the paper book had not been supplied to Defendant No. 4 therefore, this Tribunal vide order dated 02.08.2022 granted time to Defendant No. 4 to file written statement before Ld. Registrar on 12/09/2022 however, the Defendant No. 4 failed to file the same.
8. As per the provision of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993(for short “the Act, 1993”), the defendants are required to file their written statement within 30 days. The relevant provision for written statement i.e Section 19 (5) (i) of the Act, 1993, is extracted herein below: “(5) (i) the defendant shall within a period of thirty days from the date of service of summons, present a written statement of his defence including claim for set-off under sub- section (6) or a counter-claim under sub- section (8), if any, and such written statement shall be accompanied with original documents or true copies thereof with the leave of the Tribunal, relied on by the defendant in his defence: Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, the Presiding Officer may, in exceptional cases and in special circumstances to be recorded in writing, extend the said period by such further period not exceeding fifteen days to file the written statement of his defence;” (emphasis provided)
9. Admittedly, the Defendant No. 4 did not file the written statement within the stipulated time period as provided under
Section 19 (5)(i) of the Act, 1993. Even otherwise, this Tribunal has no power to condone the delay under Section 19 (5)(i) of the Act, 1993.
10. In the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hill Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd.: (2020) 5 SCC 757 a Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court has already held that there is no power to extend the time for filing response to the complaint beyond 45 days.
11. It is important to note here that Hill Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd. (supra) is pertaining to the Section 38(2)(a) The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which is pari materia to Section 19(5)(i) of the Act, 1993.
12. Thus, in view of the above since the Defendant No. 4 failed to file a written statement within prescribed time therefore, the present application is hereby dismissed.
P.O. DRT-I Tjs/-12