SARFAESI enforcement discretion: delay after section 13(2) notice does not by itself invalidate creditor action.

Under the SARFAESI framework, a notice under section 13(2) is a statutory precondition for coercive action under section 13(4), but the creditor is not required to move immediately or within any fixed timetable. The statute permits commercial discretion in choosing among enforcement measures such as sale, assignment, lease, or management takeover, and no implied time limit can be read into the provision. Delay by itself does not invalidate the enforcement notice, particularly where the borrower contributed to the lapse. The analysis also rejects the view that recovery must be confined to civil court proceedings, given the statutory enforcement scheme.

---

---

Issues: Whether a secured creditor, after issuing a notice under section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, is bound to proceed immediately to the measures under section 13(4), and whether a fresh notice under section 13(2) is invalid merely because there was a lapse of time before further enforcement action was taken.

Analysis: The scheme of section 13 shows that a notice under section 13(2) is a statutory precondition for invoking the coercive measures under section 13(4), but the Act does not prescribe that the creditor must necessarily and in every case move in a fixed sequence or within any fixed time-table to sale, assignment, lease, or management takeover. The creditor is given a choice among several enforcement measures, and the statute leaves room for commercial discretion depending on the circumstances. The absence of an express time limit for taking steps under section 13(4) means that no such limit can be read into the provision by interpretation. The court also held that delay by itself does not create a disproportionate mischief so as to invalidate the enforcement notice, particularly where the borrower's own conduct contributed to the delay. The contention that recovery must be confined to civil court proceedings was also rejected in view of the statutory recovery framework and the limited role of civil courts.

Conclusion: The second notice under section 13(2) was not invalid merely because earlier proceedings had not immediately culminated in measures under section 13(4), and the challenge to the notice failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was held to be without merit, and the impugned recovery notice was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the SARFAESI framework, a secured creditor has discretion in choosing among the enforcement measures under section 13(4), and no implied obligation exists to complete those measures within any fixed period after issuing a notice under section 13(2).

---