BANK OF INDIA vs THE GOVERNMENT TELECOMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD on 4 August 2026

1. The defendant had filed IA.No.205/2025, a petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act praying to condone delay of 768 days in filing set aside petition.

2. Brief facts of the IA: 2.1 The Defendant filed the affidavit contending that he is the President of the defendant and as such well aware of the facts of the case based on available records and duly authorized to file this petition. It is submitted that the Respondent society is consisting of BSNL Employees as its Members and catering the needs of the employees of BSNL (Bharat Sanchar Nigam

Ltd.). The Society had availed loans from various banks and disbursed the same to its members. 2.2 It is further submitted that the above society have availed Term Loans from various banks in the past in order to encourage thrift, self help and co-operation among the employees of BSNL and have repaid the loans to the extent of Rs.119,65,00,000/- to the Bank of India so far in the past and the society is having a good track record of prompt repayment of the loans availed by it from time to time from various banks. It is because of this reason, several banks were competing with each other in granting loans to the respondent society. 2.3 The petitioner further submits that the BSNL Organisation being a public sector undertaking has incurred losses due various factors including the competition from the private telephone operators and the policies of the Government etc. It is also submitted that the salaries of the employees of the BSNL who are the members of the society were not paid promptly and delayed due to financial constraints faced by the BSNL. As a result, the repayment by the members of the society was affected, which in turn affected the repayment to the petitioner bank. Further it is submitted that the announcement and implementation of the VRS Scheme further aggravated the problem. 2.4 In the above circumstances, non repayment of the loan is neither willful nor deliberate but due to the above circumstances. The above society is a law abiding organization and have no intention of defaulting the repayment of the loans availed from the petitioner bank and other banks.

In this connection, the lender banks of the respondent society have held Joint Lender Meet to discuss about the problems faced by the society and also discuss about the ways and means to realize the dues of the lender banks. While the discussions among the lender banks and respondent society was going on to arrive at an amicable solution, the petitioner bank unilaterally approached this Tribunal without consent/information of the other lender banks. 2.5 In view of the above, the defendant could not file its Written Statement on time and the defendant was set ex-parte by the Tribunal. The petitioner contends that they have good case on merits and if the ex-parte order passed against the defendant is not set aside, they will be deprived of the opportunity to establish and prove their case. The defendant had filed its Written Statement and Counter Proof Affidavit along with this petition. It is therefore requested that the ex parte order passed against defendant may be set aside.

3. Brief averments of counter: 3.1 The respondent bank filed counter submitting therein that the above petition is nothing but an abuse of process of law, filed with ulterior motive to delay the proceedings in the above TA. The OA was originally filed before DRT-II, Chennai as OA No.992 of 2019 for recovery of a sum of Rs.84,81,93,047.83p together with interest calculated at the rate of 14.30% per annum compounded with monthly rests for the period commencing from date of OA till the date of realization.

3.2 Despite receipt of summons in OA, the petitioner / defendant did not participate in the above OA and hence the petitioner was set ex-parte. The respondent / applicant bank filed their proof affidavit on 13.06.2022 along with Exhibits A-1 to A-62, which were also marked. Subsequently, the case was transferred to this Tribunal and re-numbered as TA No.1501/2023. 3.4 After transfer of case to this Tribunal, the applicant bank had filed their written arguments on 17.01.2024. At that point of time, the petitioner has come up with petition seeking to condone delay of 768 days in filing IA to set aside the ex-parte order. 3.5 The respondent / applicant bank further contends that it is reliably learnt that despite having received the contributions from its Members, the petitioner has not used the amount so received, for the purpose of discharge of their liability to the respondent herein. The petitioner / defendant had diverted their receivables and purchased immovable properties in their name, with the ulterior motive to ward of their liability to the respondent herein. Having committed default in repayment of the dues to the respondent, the petitioner herein is trying to justify their default that over lending of the institution had contributed to their default. 3.6 The respondent further contends that the petitioner has not come out with valid and justifiable reasons for condoning the delay of 768 days in filing petition to set aside the ex-parte order. As per the ratio held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in various cases, the petitioner who approaches the Court seeking for the relief of condonation of delay should specifically explain the reason for each and every day’s delay, while the delay on the part of the petitioner cannot be condoned without there being valid, reasonable and justifiable reasons and cause contributed to such delay. 3.7 The affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the relief prayed in iA is not only bald but also bereft of any explanation or reason whatsoever for the grant of relief of condonation of delay. Despite having received OA summons way back in November, 2021, the petitioner did not even bother to respond to the summons of this Tribunal. The petitioner willfully avoided participating in the proceedings before this Tribunal, despite watching the proceedings at every stage. When the OA was about to be decreed, at the eleventh hour, the petitioner herein has chosen to file the IA, only to suffocate the proceedings of this Tribunal, with the ulterior motive to subvert the due process of law. Thus submitting, respondent bank prayed for dismissal of IA with exemplary cost. Heard the submissions of both sides and perused the records.

4. The bank has filed OA before DRT-II, Chennai for recovery of sum of Rs.84,81,93,047.83p from the Defendant along with interest and cost till the date of realization. After filling OA, the Tribunal ordered summons on Defendant returnable by 02.03.2020. The bank has taken summons as directed by the Tribunal and summons was sent to Defendant, which was duly served. The Defendant entered appearance through their counsel Mr. S. Pandurangan, who filed vakalath and had appeared before the Registrar on 02.03.2020. Thereafter, in view of advisory issued by Government of India, to contain the spread of Corona Virus, cases were adjourned by notification from 18.03.2020 till 22.03.2021, and again was listed on 22.03.2021. On 22.03.2021, 22.04.2021, 22.07.2021 06.10.2021, despite seeking adjournments, defendant did not file Written Statement. Hence the Registrar posted the case before the Bench for necessary orders.

5. Thereafter, the defendant took three adjournments for filing Written statement even after posting the case before the Bench and did not file Written statement. Hence the opportunity to file written statement was closed on 16.12.2021. Thereafter, there was no representation for defendant on 31.03.2022, 10.05.2022, 01.08.2022 and 18.08.2022. Defendant neither had represented the matter nor had filed any application to re-open the chance for filing written statement. Consequently, defendant was set ex-parte on 18.08.2022 before DRT-II, Chennai and on the same day the documents of the applicant were marked as Exh. A-1 to A-62.

6. The OA was then transferred to this Tribunal due to bifurcation of jurisdiction and was re-numbered and listed on 09.08.2023 and the applicant bank was directed to file written submissions.

7. The records of the case clearly reflect that subsequent to setting them ex-parte, the defendant filed Vakalath through their counsel on 24.01.2025 along with petition for condonation of delay of 768 days in filing application to set aside the ex-parte order, Written Statement and Counter Proof Affidavit.

8. It is the matter of fact that the affidavit filed along with IA does not support case as the petitioner has not justified the reason or cause in not filing the WS on time, despite receipt of summons. On the other hand, the applicant bank has taken summons as directed by this Tribunal following due procedures in taking out summons/ service of summons as prescribed under the law.

9. The petitioner's contention that the difficulties faced by the Society and the discussions held with the lending banks to arrive at an amicable settlement constituted sufficient cause for the failure to file the written statement within the prescribed time is untenable. Such circumstances do not justify the delay in filing the written statement. Irrespective of the pendency of settlement discussions, nothing prevented the defendant from filing the written statement within the prescribed time while reserving or raising all the contentions now sought to be urged in the present I.A. The pendency of negotiations cannot be accepted as a valid ground for non- compliance with the procedural requirements.

10. Furthermore, the petitioner has failed to put forth any valid or sufficient reason for its non-participation in the proceedings, which resulted in the O.A. being proceeded with ex-parte. Having remained absent throughout the proceedings and having chosen to file the present I.A. only when the matter has reached the stage of final hearing, the defendant has failed to establish any justifiable or bona fide cause warranting the

indulgence of this Tribunal. The explanation offered is neither legally sustainable nor equitable, and does not merit acceptance.

11. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner have come forward to contest the matter at a belated stage without any reasonable and justifiable grounds with a delay of 768 days, only with an intention to frustrate the proceedings. It is also not the case that summons were not served and in spite of entering appearance, filing vakalat, written statement is not filed in time in spite of sufficient opportunities granted by the Tribunal.

12. It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Tribunal has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds and has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation as per the Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of P.K. Ramachandran vs. State of Kerala, reported in (1997) 7 SCC 556, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held thus:- "Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds".

Hence, the legal maxim “dura lex sed lex” which means “the law is hard but it is the law”, stands attracted in such a situation.

13. It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the Court. However, while there is no sufficient cause has been satisfactorily assigned by the petitioner for the inordinate delay of 768 days in preferring the application, the Tribunal is not inclined to condone the delay.

14. In the instant matter the Defendants has not justified the reasons for each day’s delay and the Tribunal is not inclined to condone the delay even on equitable grounds. The Tribunals opinion is justified by the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled Lingeswaran vs Thirunagalingam in SLP 2054-2055/2022 where it is held that the Limitation Period Cannot Be Extended On Equitable Grounds.

15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the is the said judgement observed that an application for condonation of delay has to be dismissed if it is found that the delay is not properly explained and that the period of limitation cannot be extended on equitable ground. Otherwise, it would be giving a premium to a person who fails to explain the delay and who is guilty of delay and laches.

16. Further, the Hon’ble DRAT, Chennai in the case of Golden Gate Properties Ltd. v. JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd., (2026) ibclaw.in 212 DRAT held as under: “Under Section 19(5)(i) of the RDB Act, delay in filing written statement beyond 30 days and the further extendable 15 days cannot be condoned by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and refusal to take such written statement on record was rightly confirmed.”

17. The Tribunal reminds itself that the RDDB Act is a special enactment, enacted with the purpose of providing expeditious adjudication and recovery of debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions. Time is the essence in quick disposal of Original Applications to avoid locking up of huge amount of public money in litigation which prevents proper utilization and recycling of the funds for the economic development of the country.

18. For better understanding S.19[5] is reproduced reads as under: "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"

19. Thus, a reading of S.19(5) clearly shows that the written statement/ counter-claim is required to be filed mandatorily within 30 days from the date of service of summons. Another period of 15 days maximum can be granted, only in exceptional cases and in special circumstances, which are to be found and recorded in writing by the Presiding Officer while granting extension by up to 15 days. These strict timelines of 30 days, and 15 days as mandated in section 19(5) are in consonance with the objective sought to be achieved by the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993.

20. The strict timelines for filing written statement and counter claim is that DRT is adjudicating on disputes involving huge amounts of public money, and if any delay is permitted in the adjudication of those disputes, the same will result in locking up of huge amounts of public money which further would prevent utilization and recycling of those funds for the development of the country.

21. In the instant case, the petitioner / defendant, despite having entered appearance through counsel, did not choose to file its Written Statement, notwithstanding the grant of ample opportunities and several adjournments for that purpose. Further, in the IA for condonation of delay of 768 days in filing petition to set aside the ex-parte, the petitioner is coming up with untenable, frivolous and vexatious reasons.

22. For the foregoing reasons, the IA No.205/2025 filed for condonation of delay of 768 days in filing petition to set aside the ex-parte order cannot be considered and the same stands rejected. Accordingly, IA.No.205/2025 stands dismissed. Consequently, IA No.206/2025 filed by the petitioner to set aside the ex-parte order dated 18.08.2022 also stands dismissed.

Sd/-

(S.V. GOWRAMMA) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-III, CHENNAI

(Dictated to PS, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me on this the 04th day of August, 2026)