Published: · Source checked:
In Paramjeet Mor v. Punjab National Bank, DRAT Delhi rejected a later assertion that OA papers had never been supplied. The 13 October 2026 order relied on earlier service and hearing records without a contemporaneous non-receipt objection, and upheld closure of the written-statement opportunity. It did not decide the bank's underlying recovery claim. Order, paragraphs 1–6.
Order at a glance
| Detail | Verified record |
|---|---|
| Tribunal | DRAT, Delhi |
| Chairperson | Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain |
| Case | Misc. Appeal 48/2024; O.A. 957/2023 |
| Order date | |
| Parties | Paramjeet Mor v. Punjab National Bank and others |
Why the service record was decisive
Paramjeet Mor was defendant no.3 in O.A. 957/2023 before DRT-II, Chandigarh. The appeal challenged the 17 January 2024 order closing his right to file a written statement. His appellate case was that the OA copy had not been supplied and there had therefore been no occasion to file the defence. Paragraphs 1–2.
The bank relied on earlier orders recording supply of the paper book. DRAT reviewed the 6 November 2023 and 2 January 2024 orders. The former recorded the bank counsel's statement that papers had been emailed on 29 August 2023 and granted a final opportunity of 15 days. DRAT found that the appellant had not raised non-receipt in those earlier proceedings. On that record it declined to accept the later account. Paragraphs 3–4.
This is more specific than saying that email service always defeats a defence. The appellate reasoning linked the service recital, subsequent opportunities and absence of a contemporaneous objection. It did not investigate every possible defect in electronic service in the abstract.
The filing period applied by the tribunal
DRAT referred to its earlier Nikhil Poddar decision and the subsequent Delhi High Court judgment described in paragraph 5. It applied the position that the maximum period under Section 19(5)(i) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 could not be extended beyond 45 days. It then found no ground to interfere with closure in this case. Paragraphs 5–6.
This note reports how DRAT applied those authorities; it does not independently analyse the complete High Court judgment or offer a current filing-period calculation. The underlying statutory text distinguishes the ordinary 30-day period from a limited additional period in exceptional circumstances. Its application requires the actual summons/service record and the applicable version, not simply the date a defendant later says papers became available.
The order should also be distinguished from appellate-delay condonation. A delay in bringing an appeal and the period for a defence in the original proceeding are different issues. This decision concerns the latter opportunity and the service record used to assess it.
What dismissal did and did not decide
The appeal was dismissed, leaving the challenged closure undisturbed. DRAT did not itself quantify the recovery, find every allegation in the OA proved or grant a recovery certificate in this short order. An unsuccessful procedural appeal should not be described as final adjudication of the loan dispute. Paragraph 6.
An evidence review prompted by the case
Counsel assessing a non-supply argument should reconcile the dispatch record, email addresses and attachments, hearing orders, earlier requests for time and any recorded objection about missing or illegible material. The issue is whether the proposed account fits the procedural history, rather than whether a fresh appellate assertion can replace it.
That is Veritect's inference from the reasoning. The order does not dispense with proof of service in every case, nor does this note decide when limitation begins in a different factual record.
Questions about the result
Did DRAT merely reject a request for more time?
Its reasoning also rejected the factual non-supply argument by reference to the earlier record. Both the chronology and the filing period mattered.
Was the bank's debt finally adjudicated in this appeal?
No. The operative order dismisses the appeal against closure of the written-statement opportunity. Paragraph 6.
Primary source and research scope
Official DRAT order, 13 October 2026, paragraphs 1–6; official PDF text. The analysis reports that decision as delivered. Primary source and statutory references were checked on 1 November 2026; later treatment has not been exhaustively established. No absence of an appeal, stay, variation or subsequent compliance is asserted.