Limitation bars SARFAESI enforcement where the secured debt is time-barred, and writ relief remains available for jurisdictional error.

A notice issued to enforce a secured debt was held time-barred because the underlying mortgage claim had to be tested under the Limitation Act, 1963, and the 12-year period under Article 62 had already expired when the notice was issued. The Court held that section 36 of the SARFAESI Act governs limitation for enforcement measures and that action taken beyond the limitation period is without jurisdiction. It also held that the availability of an alternative statutory remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction where the impugned action is patently without jurisdiction or otherwise not efficaciously remediable. The notice and consequential public notice were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notice issued under section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was barred by limitation and without jurisdiction, and whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an alternative remedy.

Analysis: The limitation provision in section 36 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 applies to measures under section 13(4), and the Court held that the underlying mortgage claim had to be tested under the Limitation Act, 1963. On the admitted facts, the loan and mortgage were created in 1981, while the period for enforcing the mortgage under Article 62 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was twelve years, which had long expired before the impugned notice was issued. The Court also held that the existence of an alternative statutory remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction where the impugned action is without jurisdiction or otherwise not efficaciously remediable.

Conclusion: The notice under section 13(2) was held to be hopelessly time-barred and without jurisdiction, and the writ petition was maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned notice and the consequential public notice were quashed, and the writ petition succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A secured creditor cannot invoke measures under the SARFAESI Act beyond the period of limitation applicable to enforcement of the secured debt, and a writ petition lies against a patently jurisdiction action notwithstanding an alternative remedy.

---