Concurrent recovery remedies under SARFAESI and RDDBFI upheld; unsigned bank guarantee and limitation objections rejected.

A secured creditor may invoke the SARFAESI Act even while recovery proceedings are pending under the RDDBFI Act, because the two statutes operate cumulatively and the proviso to Section 19(1) is an enabling provision rather than an exclusive-election bar. A challenge based on the absence of the bank officials' signatures on the guarantee deed is insufficient where the borrowers executed the guarantee and the security was acted upon. Enforcement action is also not time-barred where the mortgage enforcement falls within the applicable twelve-year limitation period and Section 36 does not invalidate the measures.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a secured creditor can invoke the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 while recovery proceedings are already pending under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993; (ii) Whether the challenge to the action under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 could succeed on the ground that the guarantee was not signed by the bank; (iii) Whether the measures taken under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 were barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether a secured creditor can invoke the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 while recovery proceedings are already pending under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.

Analysis: The provisions of the two enactments were construed as operating in addition to each other and not in derogation of one another. The statutory scheme of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 permits enforcement of security interest without intervention of court or tribunal, while Section 13(10) preserves the creditor's further remedy for any balance dues. The proviso to Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 was treated as an enabling provision allowing withdrawal of the pending application with permission, and not as a restriction requiring election of one exclusive remedy. The principle that a subsequent determination between the same parties may attract estoppel or res judicata was noted, but that did not bar recourse to both statutory remedies.

Conclusion: Yes. The secured creditor could proceed under both enactments, and the contention that it was bound to elect only one remedy was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the challenge to the action under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 could succeed on the ground that the guarantee was not signed by the bank.

Analysis: The petitioners had executed the guarantee and the loan was advanced on that basis. The absence of the bank officials' signature on the guarantee deed was held not to negate the concluded contractual arrangement or the liability created thereby, particularly when the security was created and acted upon. The objection was therefore insufficient to invalidate the measures taken under the statute.

Conclusion: No. The guarantee-based challenge failed and the action was upheld.

Issue (iii): Whether the measures taken under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 were barred by limitation.

Analysis: The claim related to enforcement against mortgaged property, for which the relevant limitation period was twelve years. On the chronology accepted by the Court, the loan, the civil proceedings, and the secured creditor's notice all fell within that period. Section 36 was therefore not attracted to invalidate the action as time-barred.

Conclusion: No. The action was within limitation and the objection was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed in full. The secured creditor's resort to the statutory recovery machinery was sustained, and no ground was made out to interfere with the impugned order.

Ratio Decidendi: The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is an additional recovery remedy that can be invoked notwithstanding pending proceedings under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, and the proviso to Section 19(1) does not create an exclusive-election bar.

---