Dhir International Private Limited And Others Vs Karnataka Bank Limited (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court held that mere delay in the pronouncement of a judgment, by itself, is not sufficient to invalidate the decision of Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal [DRAT]. Accordingly, judgement of DRAT upheld and petition dismissed.
Facts- The present Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails the Judgment dated 03.04.2025 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi. By way of the Impugned Judgment, DRAT set aside the judgment dated 27.06.2018 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi, whereby the DRT held that the declaration of accounts of Petitioner No. 1 as Non-Performing Assets was illegal and consequently quashed the proceedings under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 initiated by the Respondent.
Conclusion- Held that mere delay in the pronouncement of a judgment, by itself, is not sufficient to invalidate the decision of the learned DRAT. Appellate fora such as the learned DRAT are known to be heavily burdened with work, and some degree of delay, though undesirable, is often inevitable. Such delay cannot, ipso facto, be treated as demonstrative of any bias, arbitrariness or illegality in the decision-making process.
