TMI Blog2005 (1) TMI 417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Securitisation Act"). 2. The respondent-bank issued notices dated 10-3-2003 to the two appellants herein-sister companies-under section 13(2) of the Securitisation Act for recovery of Rs. 16,55,886 (in LPA No. 2 of 2005) and for recovery of Rs. 94,88,693 (in LPA No. 3 of 2005). In the first case, the bank had filed Lavad Suit No. 202 of 1992 and in the second case, the bank had filed Lavad Suit Nos. 203 and 204 of 1992. In all the cases, the appellants herein (the defendants in the suits) submitted consent pursis dated 5-11-1992 on the basis of which the board of nominees passed decrees dated 26-11-1992 in all the three suits. 3. The petitioners made some paymen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prescribed under article 62 of the Limitation Act would begin to run from the said date, i.e., from 5/9-6-1987. It is submitted that the period of 12 years expired in the year 1999 and since the impugned notices have been issued thereafter in March, 2003, they are barred by the provisions of section 36 of the Securitisation Act. 6. Section 36 of the Securitisation Act reads as under: "36. Limitation. No secured creditor shall be entitled to take all or any of the measures under sub-section (4) of section 13, unless his claim in respect of the financial asset is made within the period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1963." 7. Articles 62,63 and 136 of the Limitation Act reads as under: Descript ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he mortgage deeds executed by the appellants, moneys were required to be paid within a period of three years and, therefore, the period of limitation would, at the most, run from 5/9-6-1990 and still the impugned notices were issued after the period of 12 years from 5/9-6-1990. 9. The submission overlooks the fact that the suits in which consent decrees were passed by the trial court were filed in the year 1992, i.e., well within the period of 12 years from the date on which the appellants liability to pay the mortgaged money arose. Once suits were filed within the period of limitation and once the board of nominees passed decrees on 26-11-1992, there was no question of the respondent-bank s claim becoming time-barred on the basis th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date of notice and if the borrower gives a reply raising any dispute about the amount due including dispute about interest, the financial institution will have to meaningfully consider the reply and take the decision and thereafter proceed under sub-section (4) of section 13. Section 17 of the Securitisation Act confers a right of appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal to any person (including the borrower) aggrieved by any of the measures taken by the secured creditor under section 13(4) of the Act. Hence, when the secured creditor has already obtained a decree of a civil court/Debts Recovery Tribunal, issuance of notice under section 13(2) of the Securitisation Act is not to be construed as institution of a suit in a civil court for en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
