THE CHIEF MANAGER vs M/S VADIM INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD on 30 October 2026

1. M/s. Vadim Infrastructure (P) Ltd Represented by its Director Mr. R. Rajamanickam

2. R. Rajamanickam S/o. Rathinam

3. R.Selvamanickam

S/o. Rathinam

4. T.Karikalan S/o. R.Tamilrasan

All having office at: New No. 36, Old No. 56, 1st Floor, Kalaimagal Nagar, 2nd Main Road, Ekkatuthangal, Chennai 600 032 ....Petitioners/Defendants

-Vs-

Canara Bank Represented by Chief Manager Guindy Branch, No. 1 Jawaharlal Nehru Salai, Ekkaduthangal Chennai 600 032

....Respondent/Applicant

Counsels on record / appeared:

Counsel for Petitioners : M/s Krishna Dath Counsel for respondent : Mr. B.S. Sundaramoorthi

: - ORDER ON IA NOs. 2471/2025 & 2472/2025 - :

1. The Petitioners, who are defendants in the OA, have filed IAs 2471/2025, a petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act praying to condone

delay of 718 days in filing set aside petition and IA No.2472/25, praying to set aside the ex-parte order dated 30.08.2023.

2. Brief averments of the IA: 2.1 It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent/applicant has filed the above Original Application for recovery of certain sums and for recovery certificate against the petitioner/defendant. The 1st petitioner/defendant is a private limited company incorporated in the year 2007 and is in the business of providing Engineering Procurement and Construction Services including Electrical & Instrumentation works including installation and commissioning of power generation equipment. The 1st defendant company is a Micro, Small Medium Enterprise (MSME). The petitioner/defendant availed Term Loan of Rs.1.5 Crores and was paying the EMIs promptly. 2.2 The petitioners/defendants herein suffered huge loss on account of Covid-19 Pandemic, as the projects across the country was stalled pursuant to the lockdown initiated all over the country. Being an MSME, the 1st petitioner/defendant company was striving for its survival in the year 2020 and as such petitioner/defendant herein fell in default in servicing the loan. In such circumstances, the respondent bank classified the loan account as Non-Performing Assets. 2.3 Thereafter, an application was filed by the Respondent Bank and numbered as O.A No. 35 of 2022 before DRT- II, Chennai and the petitioners submit that their counsel filed vakalat for D1 on 27.07.2022 and

the vakalat for D2-D4 was filed on 07.09.2022. It is contended that after the said hearing, O.A No. 35 of 2022 never got listed before DRT-II, and upon enquiry with Registry, counsel was informed that the application is being transferred from DRT-II to DRT-IIІ. 2.4 The petitioners further submit that while their counsel was sincerely following up the above transfer proceeding, it came to their knowledge that the case was transferred and came to be listed before the DRT-II on 04.08.2023 before the Registrar for filing of Written Statement and again on 30.08.2023 before the Bench, on which day, the defendants were set ex-parte. 2.5 It is submitted that no notice was served on the petitioners/ defendants after the transfer and it is only through their counsel, the petitioners herein was put to understand that the Applicant/respondents was set ex-parte in the said proceedings. The petitioners/defendants have been duly contesting the proceedings initiated by the respondent/applicant bank in O.A No. 35 of 2022 before DRT II and had they known of the above transfer also they would have contested the same on merits and would not have let it go ex-parte. Further, as the existing counsel was not properly following up with the petition, the present petition is being filed by the Petitioners herein through a new Counsel, after obtaining a change of vakalat from the previous counsel. 2.6 The petitioners submit that there occurred a delay of 718 days, in filing the set ex-parte petition due to the change of counsel in the matter, and due to the fact that, in between the 2nd Petitioner/2nd defendant herein

was admitted into hospital for urgent medical reasons. As he was under treatment, there was a delay in finding a new counsel and engage them in the present matter, as the previous counsel failed to update the status of the matter, and the failure from the part of earlier counsel to proper follow up the matter and report the same to the 2nd Petitioner/2nd defendant herein, which is neither intentional nor wanton. In such circumstances unless and otherwise an opportunity is granted to the petitioners to contest on merits, the petitioner/defendant would be put to grave prejudicial and undue hardship. The 1st petitioner/ 1st defendant have a substantial case to be stated on merits, for there is no such liability as being demanded and the calculation of interest and the accounting is not as per the accounting principle and several repayments made have not at all been taken into consideration. Thus submitting, petitioners prayed for codonation of delay of 718 days in filing set aside petition. Hence, it is prayed by the petitioners to condone delay of 718 days of delay in filing the set aside application and to set aside the order dated 30.08.2023 setting defendants ex-parte.

3. Brief averments of counter of respondent bank: 3.1 The Respondent/Applicant filed counter denying all the averments and allegations contained in the Application, except to the extent specifically admitted thereunder. It is submitted that the Defendants approached the applicant Bank for SOD Loan and the Applicant Bank had sanctioned a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- (Rupees One crore and Fifty Lakhs) vide Sanction Memorandum dated 27.08.2019 and for the loan the defendants have executed all the relevant loan documents. The defendants

have agreed to all the terms and conditions stated in all the bank Documents. As on 14.09.2021, the defendants are due and liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,80,36,354.22/- for SOD Loan which was restructured as WCTL Loan. Despite a very huge money being due to be paid by the Defendants, the defendants in their written statement have stated that the applicant can approach the CGTMSE to claim amount of 75% of loan limit upto and inclusive of Rs.200 lakhs i.e., the Applicant bank can claim 75% of amount out of the total out of the total outstanding loan amount of Rs.1,80,36,354.92/- 3.2 The defendants having borrowed the loan from Applicant Bank and being a chromic defaulter is now dictating the applicant Bank to claim 75% of the loan amount by approaching the CGTMSE. The Defendants ought to have followed up the case and having kept quiet for nearly two years, are filing the present petition to condone delay of 710 days in filing the set aside petition and the petition to set aside the ex-parte order dated 30.08.2023. The attitude of the defendants is to evade repayments of the loan amount to the bank and now coming with the above two petitions with a new counsel is not acceptable and is against all the principles of natural Justice. 3.3 The respondent bank submits that various High Courts and Supreme Court has held in several Judgments that each day delay has to be explained and sufficient cause for the delay has to be shown. In the present case the reason for the delay has not been properly explained and sufficient

cause has not been shown. Having utilized the loan facility from the Nationalized Bank, the petitioners / defendants are duty bound to repay the loan amount. Instead of repaying the loan amount, Accordingly, the Respondent Bank prayed that present IAs are devoid of merit and are liable to be dismissed. Heard the submissions of both counsels on IA and perused the records.

4. The bank has filed OA for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,80,36,354.92p from the Defendants 1 to 4, along with interest and cost till the date of realization. After filling OA, the Tribunal ordered summons to Defendants 1 to 4, returnable by 04.05.2022.

5. The bank has taken summons as directed by the Tribunal. Summons sent to all the Defendants 1 to 4 were duly served. On 27.07.2022, the case was taken up before the Registrar Court, service of summons was recorded. Vakalat for D-1 was filed on 27.07.2022 and vakalat for D-2 to D-4 was filed on 07.09.2022. Thereafter, the case was transferred to this Tribunal from DRT-II on bifurcation of jurisdiction and was re-numbered as TA No.1243/2023.

6. After transfer of case to this Tribunal, the case was listed before the Registrar on 04.08.2023 before the Assistant Registrar, on which day there was no representation for either parties. Case was posted to 30.08.2023 before the Bench for further proceedings. On 30.08.2023, as there was no

representation for defendants and written statement also was not filed despite availing several adjournments, defendants were called absent and set ex-parte on 30.08.2023.

7. The records of the case clearly reflect that subsequent to setting them ex-parte, the defendants filed the present IAs on 17.09.2025 praying to condone delay of 718 days in filing petition to set aside the ex-parte order and to set aside the order dated 30.08.2023. After scrutiny, the IAs were numbered on 13.10.2025 and posted before the Bench for hearing.

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 contention of the Petitioners that after transfer of case to this Tribunal, no notice was served on the petitioners/ defendants and it is only through their counsel, the petitioners were aware that they were set ex- parte in the proceedings. The transfer was not an individual transfer ordered at the instance of any party, but was occasioned by the redistribution of territorial jurisdiction pursuant to the Government notification. Consequently, the proceedings continued before the Tribunal having jurisdiction over the subject matter. Having entered appearance through counsel in the OA, the defendants were required to remain vigilant

and follow the progress of the proceedings through their counsel. The mere fact that the proceedings were transferred and assigned a fresh case number cannot, by itself, constitute sufficient cause for condonation of an inordinate delay. The defendants cannot seek to take advantage of their own inaction, particularly when they have failed to establish that they exercised due diligence or made any bonafide attempt to ascertain the status of the pending proceedings.

10. The further contention of petitioners regarding medical treatment of 2nd petitioner is not supported by any medical records or other documentary evidence. Hence, the said contention remains unsubstantiated.

11. Furthermore, the petitioners have 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, despite receipt of summons, and having chosen to file the present I.As. when the matter has reached the stage of marking of documents, the defendants have failed to establish any justifiable or bonafide cause warranting the indulgence of this Tribunal. The explanation offered is neither legally sustainable nor equitable, and does not merit acceptance.

12. It is pertinent to note that the petitioners have come forward to contest the matter without any reasonable and justifiable grounds with an in ordinate delay of 718 days, only with an intention to frustrate the proceedings. 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 64 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 Tribunal’s 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 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. The Tribunal reminds itself that the RDB 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.

17. 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"

18. 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.

19. In the recent judgment of Hon’ble DRAT, Delhi in the matter of Mahua Co-operative Cold Storage Ltd. v. National Co operative Development Corporation - Misc. Appeal No. 175/2026 (Arising out of O.A. No. 650/2023) - reported in (2026) ibclaw.in 189 DRAT has held that “Where Section 19(5)(i) of the RDB Act limits filing of Written Statement to 30 days extendable by not more than 15 days in exceptional cases, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to accept a written statement filed beyond 45 days and refusal to condone 29 days’ delay beyond that period is liable to be upheld.”

20. In another recent judgment of Hon’ble DRAT, Chennai in the matter of Ghishulal Kothari and Ors. v. Union Bank of India and Ors., (2026) ibclaw.in 354 DRAT it is held that “even if delay in filing the appeal were condoned, the written statement could not be accepted beyond 45 days – application for condonation of delay rightly not entertainable in substance”

21. The strict timelines for filing written statement and counter claim is because of the reason 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.

22. In the instant case, the petitioners / defendants, despite receipt of summons, did not choose file Written Statement. Further, in the IA for condonation of delay of 718 days in filing petition to set aside the ex-parte, the petitioners are coming up with untenable, frivolous and vexatious reasons.

23. For the foregoing reasons, the IA No.2471/2025 filed for condonation of delay of 718 days in filing petition to set aside the ex-parte order cannot be considered and the same stands rejected. Accordingly, IA.No.2471/2025 stands dismissed. Consequently, IA No.2472/2025 filed by the petitioner to set aside the ex-parte order dated 30.08.2023 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 30th day of October, 2026)