Limitation under Article 137 barred NCLT proceedings filed after prior DRT recovery action.

Proceedings before the NCLT were found barred by limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act because they were instituted beyond the prescribed period after the asset was declared non-performing, and the creditor had already pursued recovery before the DRT. The SC declined to express any broader opinion on the legal question raised and found no basis to interfere, with the result that the proceedings were treated as time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the proceedings before the NCLT were barred by limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act.

Analysis: The declaration of the non-performing asset was made on 20 February 2010, and the appellant had already taken recourse to proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal for recovery of its dues. The proceedings before the NCLT were instituted beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The Court declined to express any opinion on the broader question of law raised and found no basis to interfere.

Conclusion: The proceedings were held to be time-barred, and the appeal was dismissed.

---