- with readers working within the Law Firm industries
- within Environment, Intellectual Property and Employment and HR topic(s)
The High Court of Delhi through its judgment dated 12.02.2026 in Avantha Holdings Limited v. ICICI Bank Limited & Ors.1 while applying the principle of parity held that where substantial delay on one side is overlooked, a shorter delay on the other side cannot be treated with undue strictness.
The issue before the High Court was whether the Debts Recovery Tribunal ("DRT") and the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal ("DRAT") were justified in refusing to condone a delay of 14 days in filing the written statement under Section 19(5)(i) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, when service of summons and the complete paper book had been affected belatedly by the other party.
The High Court while applying the principle of parity held that the other party had itself failed to comply with the DRT's directions with respect to prompt service of summons and had itself taken considerable time to affect the effective service. In light of this, High Court applying the principle of parity held that where substantial delay on one side is overlooked, a shorter delay on the other side cannot be treated with undue strictness. Consequently, the delay of 14 days in filing the written statement was condoned.
Footnote
1 CM APPL. 82791/2025 of W.P.(C) 19835/2025
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
