https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114069 Under the SARFAESI regime, the forty-five-day period for a borrower's application under section 17(1) was linked to actual possession of the secured asset, because symbolic and actual possession under section 13(4)(a) were treated as stages of the same enforcement measure and no separate cause of action arose merely from later sale steps. The article also states that section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to such proceedings: there was no express or necessary exclusion, so section 29(2) carried in sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, allowing delay to be condoned on sufficient cause. en-us Wed, 19 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Dec 2014 12:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114069 Under the SARFAESI regime, the forty-five-day period for a borrower's application under section 17(1) was linked to actual possession of the secured asset, because symbolic and actual possession under section 13(4)(a) were treated as stages of the same enforcement measure and no separate cause of action arose merely from later sale steps. The article also states that section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to such proceedings: there was no express or necessary exclusion, so section 29(2) carried in sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, allowing delay to be condoned on sufficient cause. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 19 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114069