https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283524 A secured creditor cannot treat the pendency of a proceeding under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 as suspending or extending limitation for an independent invocation of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Section 36 requires that action under Section 13(4) be based on a claim still within the Limitation Act, 1963 on the date of invocation, and Sections 4, 14 and 15 do not convert a parallel recovery proceeding into excluded time for SARFAESI purposes. On that basis, the Calcutta HC held the securitisation action time-barred and quashed the Section 13(2) notice and consequential measures. en-us Fri, 07 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Sep 2019 19:23:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283524 A secured creditor cannot treat the pendency of a proceeding under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 as suspending or extending limitation for an independent invocation of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Section 36 requires that action under Section 13(4) be based on a claim still within the Limitation Act, 1963 on the date of invocation, and Sections 4, 14 and 15 do not convert a parallel recovery proceeding into excluded time for SARFAESI purposes. On that basis, the Calcutta HC held the securitisation action time-barred and quashed the Section 13(2) notice and consequential measures. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 07 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283524