Dipankar Chakraborty v. Allahabad Bank and Ors. AIR 2017 Cal 289 | Corporate Debt Recovery Attorney in Delhi NCR | Corporate Debt Recovery Lawyer in Delhi NCR | DRT Lawyer in Delhi NCR
DRT Lawyer in Delhi | DRT Lawyer in Delhi NCR | DRT Lawyer in Noida | DRT Lawyer in Gurugram | Corporate Debt Recovery Lawyer in New Delhi | Corporate Debt Recovery Lawyer in India | Corporate Debt Recovery Lawyer in Delhi NCR | Corporate Debt Recovery Lawyer in Delhi | Corporate Debt Recovery Lawyer in Noida | Corporate Debt Recovery Lawyer in Gurugram | Corporate Debt Recovery Attorney in Delhi NCR | Corporate Debt Recovery Attorney in Delhi | Corporate Debt Recovery Attorney in Noida | Corporate Debt Recovery Attorney in Gurugram | Corporate Debt Recovery Attorney in New Delhi | Corporate Debt Recovery Attorney in India | Corporate Debt Recovery Legal Solutions in Delhi NCR | Corporate Debt Recovery Legal Services in Delhi NCR | Corporate Debt Recovery Legal Remedies in Delhi NCR | Corporate Debt Recovery Attorney in Delhi NCR | Corporate Debt Recovery Attorney in Delhi | Corporate Debt Recovery Attorney in Noida | Corporate Debt Recovery Attorney in Gurugram | Corporate Debt Recovery Attorney in New Delhi |
The petitioner borrower in the present case had submitted that, he had enjoyed credit facilities from the bank. Since the bank had not acted in terms of its obligations, the petitioner was obliged to file a suit for damages being Money Suit No. 120 of 2000 before the learned City Civil Court at Calcutta against the bank. Furthermore, in the present scenario, the bank had not filed its claims within the time period of 30 days before the court due to which the veracity of their case got affected immensely. This was one ground on which the petitioner had approached the Court in the first instance. The aforementioned period of limitation was stated in the Limitation Act, 1963. The Bank claimed that the claim is within the period of limitation. Furthermore, it was submitted by the bank that, the period of limitation had stopped on the date when the bank had filed the proceedings under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions (RDBFI) Act, 1993 in 2001. Furthermore, the notice issued by the bank under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest (SARFAESI) Act of 2002, lacked basis considering the fact that the bank did not have any right over the mortgaged property of the appellant on the date of notice issue.
Held: The Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta held that the right to proceed, however, is subject to the adherence to the provisions of limitation as enshrined in the Limitation Act, 1963. The provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 are, therefore attracted to a proceeding initiated under the Act of 2002. That being the legal position, the invocation of the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest (SARFAESI) Act of 2002 in the facts of the present case, on July 5, 2011, without there being an extension of the period of limitation by the act of the parties could not be sustained. The issues raised were, therefore, answered by the Hon’ble Court by holding that, the initiation of the proceedings by the bank was barred by the laws of limitation on July 5, 2011 and all proceedings taken by the bank consequent upon and pursuant to the notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest (SARFAESI) Act of 2002 dated July 5, 2011 were quashed including such notice.
Authored By: Adv. Anant Sharma & Abhijith Christopher