Shortfall recovery claims under SARFAESI remain subject to Debt Recovery Tribunal jurisdiction and pecuniary limits.

Section 13(10) of the SARFAESI Act was read as an enabling provision for recovery of the balance amount through the Debt Recovery Tribunal or other competent forum, but only within the jurisdictional framework of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act. The court held that the pecuniary threshold under Section 1(4) of the recovery statute applies to such shortfall claims, because SARFAESI does not create a separate, self-contained code for original recovery proceedings. The absence of independent appellate and recovery machinery under SARFAESI reinforced that the application operates as an original recovery claim under the recovery statute.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the pecuniary limit under Section 1(4) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 applies to an application by a secured creditor under Section 13(10) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 for recovery of the balance amount. (ii) Whether an application under Section 13(10) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is an independent remedy or is to be treated as an original recovery claim under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993.

Issue (i): Whether the pecuniary limit under Section 1(4) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 applies to an application by a secured creditor under Section 13(10) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 for recovery of the balance amount.

Analysis: The framework of the two enactments was read together. Section 13(10) merely permits the secured creditor to seek recovery of the shortfall before the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction or a competent court, as prescribed. The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 does not itself confer a separate jurisdictional code for original recovery claims by secured creditors, nor does it identify a tribunal independent of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 for such claims. Since the application under Section 13(10) depends on the Debts Recovery Tribunal's jurisdiction, the statutory threshold governing that tribunal cannot be ignored.

Conclusion: The pecuniary limit under Section 1(4) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 applies and the claim below the threshold was not maintainable before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Issue (ii): Whether an application under Section 13(10) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is an independent remedy or is to be treated as an original recovery claim under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993.

Analysis: Section 13(10) was held to be enabling in nature and not a self-contained mechanism for adjudication and recovery. The procedure under Rule 11 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 incorporates the procedure of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993, and the remedy lacks the wider machinery associated with original recovery proceedings unless it is read with the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. The absence of provisions for appeal, set-off, counterclaim, recovery certificate, and recovery machinery under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 reinforced the view that the application is functionally an original recovery claim within the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 framework.

Conclusion: An application under Section 13(10) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is not an independent code and is to be treated as an original application under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993.

Final Conclusion: The balance-recovery claim could not be entertained outside the jurisdictional limits of the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the recovery statute, and the challenge to the dismissal of the application failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A shortfall-recovery application under Section 13(10) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is maintainable before the Debts Recovery Tribunal only within the jurisdictional and procedural framework of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, including its pecuniary threshold.

---