2011 (3) TMI 1474

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is contended that no execution petition was filed within the limitation period of 12 years. According to the petitioner the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act was initiated only in December 2009, and steps as contemplated under section 13(4) was intimated through Ext.P1 notice, issued only on 17-1-2011. Under such circumstances the proceedings is challenged on the ground that it is barred by limitation, as prescribed under section 36 of the SARFAESI Act. 2. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents it is mentioned that an execution petition was filed before the Sub-Court within the period of limitation, and the petitioner had already entered appearance and raised contentions regarding maintainability of the execution petitio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ith respect to the loan account. Hence the limitation period need be reckoned from the date on which the loan account was classified as 'NPA', is the crux of the contention. 5. On a reading of section 13(2) it is evident that two ingredients required for raising a demand are, (i) there should be a default in repayment of a secured debt or any instalments thereof and (ii) the account of the borrower in respect of such debt should have been classified by the secured creditor as a non-performing asset. In the case at hand since the decree debt will fall within the definition of 'debt', the first limb is satisfied. On a careful reading of the second limb (2nd ingredient), it is clear that the wording is, 'his account in respect of such debt'. ....