Published: · Source checked:
The Raju v. Canara Bank order reopened a procedural question; it did not automatically admit a late written statement. On 23 October 2026, DRAT Delhi allowed an application confined to the plea that legible OA papers were received only after the 17 March hearing, leaving DRT-II to decide that application. Order, paragraphs 5–6.
Order at a glance
| Detail | Verified record |
|---|---|
| Tribunal | DRAT, Delhi |
| Chairperson | Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain |
| Case | Misc. Appeal 242/2026; T.A. 1955/2022; I.A. 1207/2026 |
| Order date | |
| Parties | K. Raghu Rama Krishna Raju v. Canara Bank |
The orders under appeal
DRT-II, Delhi had closed the defendant's opportunity to file a written statement on 17 March 2026. On 8 June 2026 it dismissed I.A. 1579/2026 seeking recall. The dispute concerned T.A. 1955/2022, which the bank described as involving recovery exceeding ₹78 crore. That amount described the recovery proceeding; it was not an award made in this appeal. Paragraphs 2 and 4–5.
The appellant said legible copies of the Original Application and annexures were received only after the 17 March hearing. The bank relied on earlier service and the defendant's prior appearances and requests for time. The reproduced recall order treated the filing period as exhausted. These were competing accounts of the procedural record, not an agreed finding about when a complete legible set reached the defendant. Paragraphs 2–4.
Two different kinds of delay
The same appellate order condoned a 117-day delay in filing the appeal in I.A. 1207/2026. That is distinct from permission to file the written statement in the original recovery proceeding. An appeal-delay decision should not be presented as a general power to extend the written-statement period by 117 days. Paragraph 1.
In the merits section of the appeal, DRAT focused on whether the contention about receipt of legible papers had been addressed. It noted the substantial rights involved and that the recall order had concentrated on non-filing up to 17 March. That led to a limited opportunity to have the legibility/receipt issue considered. Paragraph 5.
The exact opportunity granted
DRAT set aside both challenged orders. It gave the appellant seven days from the appellate order to apply for placing the written statement on record, confined to the stated plea about receipt of legible papers after the hearing. DRT-II was directed to decide that application within two weeks of its filing. Paragraph 6, original scanned page 3.
The distinction between permission to apply and permission to file successfully is decisive. DRAT did not conclusively find the appellant's receipt chronology proved. It did not direct unconditional acceptance of the written statement, decide the defence or determine liability in the ₹78-crore-plus claim. The DRT retained the decision on the specified application.
How to use the distinction in practice
A party advancing a legibility issue should identify the documents affected, the earlier requests, the response, the date a usable set was received and the order that addressed or omitted that issue. A bare statement that papers were unreadable does not reproduce the evidentiary record this order required the DRT to examine.
The corresponding response should distinguish service of papers from the specific allegation that essential parts were illegible. These are evidence-framing lessons from the decision, not a general exception to Section 19(5)(i) or a substitute for checking the applicable filing regime.
Questions about the relief
Was the written statement accepted by DRAT?
No. DRAT authorised a confined application and required the DRT to decide it.
Does the appeal-delay condonation decide the written-statement deadline?
No. The 117-day appellate delay and the application to place a defence on the original record were separate procedural questions. Paragraphs 1 and 6.
Primary source and research scope
Official DRAT order, 23 October 2026, paragraphs 1–6; original scanned pages 1–3. 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.