SARFAESI enforcement against mortgaged property is not barred by section 31(g) or by the Debt Recovery Act threshold.

Section 31(g) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 does not exempt mortgaged residential property where the asset is specifically charged with the debt recoverable under the Act; the objection to enforcement on that ground therefore fails. The Act also operates independently of the monetary threshold in the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, so proceedings under the Securitisation Act are not invalid merely because the debt falls below that threshold; that objection also fails. On that basis, no ground was made out for review and the interim order was allowed to stand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether section 31(g) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 exempted the petitioner's mortgaged residential property from proceedings under that Act. (ii) Whether proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 were not maintainable because the debt was below the threshold applicable to the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.

Issue (i): Whether section 31(g) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 exempted the petitioner's mortgaged residential property from proceedings under that Act.

Analysis: Section 31(g) excludes properties not liable to attachment or sale under section 60(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but specifically carves out properties charged with the debt recoverable under the Act. The property in question was admittedly mortgaged as security for the debt and therefore fell within the carved-out category.

Conclusion: The exemption did not apply, and the objection failed against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 were not maintainable because the debt was below the threshold applicable to the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.

Analysis: The Act defines "debt" by reference to the Recovery of Debts Act, but it does not import the monetary threshold in section 1(4) of that Act as a limitation on action under the Securitisation Act. The latter Act applies to security interests securing financial assets exceeding the statutory minimum, and the Tribunal's powers under it are in addition to those under the Recovery of Debts Act.

Conclusion: The proceedings were maintainable, and the objection failed against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: No ground was made out for review, and the interim order was allowed to stand.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Securitisation Act, mortgaged property specifically charged with the debt is not protected by section 31(g), and the Act operates independently of the Debt Recovery Tribunal monetary threshold under the Recovery of Debts Act.

---