A disagreement has emerged among High Courts over how strictly Debts Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) must enforce the 45-day limit for filing written statements in recovery proceedings.
The Delhi High Court has taken a strict position, holding that the statutory period cannot be extended beyond 45 days. The Telangana and Punjab and Haryana High Courts, however, have recognised circumstances in which a DRT may exercise discretion even after that period has expired.
The issue came before the Delhi High Court in a case involving Nikhil Poddar and Punjab National Bank. A Division Bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Renu Bhatnagar held that while the initial 30-day period for filing a written statement can be extended by another 15 days, no further delay can be condoned.
The Bench treated the 45-day ceiling under Section 19(5)(i) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act as binding.
According to the Court, the provision does not leave room for a tribunal or court to permit a written statement after the outer limit has expired.
The dispute arose after Poddar challenged a Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal decision refusing to take his written statement on record in recovery proceedings brought by PNB.
Poddar had received the complete pleadings and paper book on September 6, 2019, but submitted his written statement on November 26. His side argued that the delay was linked to the time taken by the bank to provide the necessary documents.
The Delhi High Court rejected that explanation, holding that the limitation period began once the complete paper book had been received.
The Bench also declined to apply Section 5 of the Limitation Act to extend the deadline. It relied on the principle that where a special statute prescribes a specific outer limit, that timeline cannot automatically be overridden by general provisions permitting condonation of delay.
The Delhi High Court’s approach is consistent with its earlier ruling in Anita Garg v. State Bank of India, where it held that the expression “not exceeding fifteen days” in the RDB Act confines the DRT’s power to the additional 15-day period.
Punjab and Haryana High Court takes a broader approach
The position is different in Punjab and Haryana.
In Shri Shri Ram Gupta v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry held that the provisions concerning written statements under the RDB Act, read alongside Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, are directory rather than mandatory.
The Court consequently set aside orders refusing to receive written statements and granted the concerned parties one final opportunity to place their pleadings on record.
Telangana High Court recognises DRT discretion
The Telangana High Court has similarly taken the view that the 45-day period does not necessarily strip a DRT of all power to consider a delayed written statement.
In Ravali Industries v. State Bank of India, a Division Bench held that a tribunal had erred in assuming that it had no authority to consider a written statement filed beyond the prescribed period.
At the same time, the Court made it clear that recognising such power does not mean every delay must be accepted. Whether an extension should be granted would depend on the circumstances of the individual case.
That approach was revisited in B Anand v. Agrasen Co-operative Urban Bank, where the Telangana High Court considered both its own earlier decisions and the contrary position adopted by the Delhi High Court.
The contrasting rulings leave DRTs operating under different interpretations of the same statutory timeline, with the key question being whether the 45-day period is an absolute bar or a procedural deadline that can, in appropriate cases, be relaxed.