https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214999 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. en-us Wed, 23 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Jun 2012 07:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214999 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. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 23 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214999