https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111092 Notices under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 were examined for limitation where the underlying liability had been crystallised by consent decrees. The relevant limitation point was treated as the enforceability of the decrees and the secured creditor's claim as a financial asset, not merely the original mortgage date. Measures taken under section 13 were regarded as analogous to execution where a decree already existed, and the notices were found to fall within the twelve-year period under article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The limitation challenge therefore failed, and the claim was not time-barred under section 36 of the Securitisation Act. en-us Tue, 11 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Apr 2012 12:39:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111092 Notices under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 were examined for limitation where the underlying liability had been crystallised by consent decrees. The relevant limitation point was treated as the enforceability of the decrees and the secured creditor's claim as a financial asset, not merely the original mortgage date. Measures taken under section 13 were regarded as analogous to execution where a decree already existed, and the notices were found to fall within the twelve-year period under article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The limitation challenge therefore failed, and the claim was not time-barred under section 36 of the Securitisation Act. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 11 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111092