Limitation for SARFAESI enforcement turns on decree enforceability, and notices were treated as within the execution period.

Notices under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 were examined for limitation where the underlying liability had been crystallised by consent decrees. The relevant limitation point was treated as the enforceability of the decrees and the secured creditor's claim as a financial asset, not merely the original mortgage date. Measures taken under section 13 were regarded as analogous to execution where a decree already existed, and the notices were found to fall within the twelve-year period under article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The limitation challenge therefore failed, and the claim was not time-barred under section 36 of the Securitisation Act.

---

---

Issues: Whether notices issued under section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 were barred by limitation and therefore invalid.

Analysis: The liability had already been crystallised by consent decrees passed in 1992, and the notices were issued in 2003. For limitation purposes, the relevant point was not the original mortgage date alone, but the enforceability of the decrees and the creditor's claim as a financial asset. The statutory scheme of the Securitisation Act permits enforcement of secured assets without court intervention, and where a decree already exists, the measures taken under section 13 are to be treated in the nature of execution. On that basis, the notices were within the twelve-year period contemplated by article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the claim was not time-barred under section 36 of the Securitisation Act.

Conclusion: The challenge based on limitation failed, and the notices under section 13(2) were held to be within limitation.

---