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.