The Delhi High Court has held that Debts Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) cannot accept written statements beyond 45 days under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act [Nikhil Podar Vs PNB].
However, the Telangana High Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court have taken the opposite view.
A Division Bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Renu Bhatnagar of Delhi High Court held that the 30-day period prescribed for filing a written statement can be extended by a maximum of 15 days, and that courts have no power to condone any further delay.
“The delay beyond the maximum period 45 days prescribed under Section 19(5)(i) of the RDB Act cannot be condoned by any Court," the Court said.
The Court was hearing a petition filed by Nikhil Poddar against a Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) order refusing to take his written statement on record in recovery proceedings initiated by Punjab National Bank.
Poddar's counsel received the complete pleadings/ paper book on September 6, 2019. The written statement was filed on November 26, beyond the 45-day period.
The High Court rejected his argument concerning delay by the bank in supplying the papers, finding that the entire paper book had been received on September 6 and that limitation began running from that date.
The Bench said the RDB Act is a special code and held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act could not be invoked to condone the delay. It also relied on Supreme Court decisions concerning statutory timelines under the Consumer Protection Act, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Central Excise Act and Companies Act.
The ruling follows the Delhi High Court's 2021 decision in Anita Garg v. State Bank of India, which held that the words “not exceeding fifteen days” restrict the DRT's discretion to extend time beyond the additional 15-day period.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court, however, took a different view in March 2026.
In Shri Shri Ram Gupta v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry held that the provisions governing filing of written statements under the RDB Act, read with Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, are directory and not mandatory. Consequently, it set aside orders refusing written statements and gave the petitioners a final opportunity to file them.
The Telangana High Court also recognised a DRT's power to go beyond 45 days. In Ravali Industries v. State Bank of India in 2021, a division bench held that a tribunal erred in concluding that it lacked such power, while clarifying that whether delay should actually be condoned would depend on the facts of each case.
That position was reiterated in September this year in B Anand v. Agrasen Co-operative Urban Bank. Justices Moushumi Bhattacharya and Renuka Yara noted both the Telangana view permitting an extension and the contrary Delhi High Court ruling in Anita Garg.
Punjab National Bank was represented before the Delhi High Court by advocates Brijesh K Tamber, Chanchala Kumari and Vinay Singh Bist.
[Read Judgment]