Limitation for SARFAESI decree debt runs from the decree date, not NPA classification, making the notice timely.

Proceedings under the SARFAESI Act were considered in the context of a decree debt, and limitation was held to run from the date the decree became due rather than from the date the loan account was classified as a non-performing asset. The claim under section 13(2) was treated as a demand for recovery of a statutory debt, and for section 36 the relevant limitation period had to be reckoned with reference to the decree date. On that basis, the section 13(2) notice was treated as timely, while the separate objection concerning expiry of the section 17(1) remedy was left open for the Tribunal. The limitation challenge was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 were barred by limitation when the secured asset sought to be recovered was a decree debt, and whether limitation had to be reckoned from the date of the decree or from the date the loan account was classified as a non-performing asset.

Analysis: The claim initiated under section 13(2) was for recovery of a debt that fell within the statutory definition of debt, and the account in respect of such debt was the underlying loan account. For the purpose of section 36, the relevant claim in respect of the financial asset had to be made within the prescribed limitation period, and the limitation for a decree debt had to be computed from the date on which the decree became due. On that reasoning, the notice under section 13(2) was within time when measured from the decree date, and not from the date of classification of the loan as a non-performing asset. The separate objection regarding expiry of the remedy under section 17(1) was left open for consideration before the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The challenge based on limitation was rejected, and the writ petition failed on that ground.

---