SARFAESI Act Section 14 Proceedings Constitute Continuous Cause of Action for Limitation Purposes: Allahabad High Court - 2026-06-03

Bridging the Gap: Allahabad High Court Defines ‘Continuous Cause of Action’ Under SARFAESI Act

In a significant ruling for borrowers facing recovery proceedings, the Allahabad High Court has clarified the interplay between Sections 13(4) and 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The judgment, delivered by Justice Pankaj Bhatia, mandates that the limitation period for challenging debt recovery actions is not strictly tethered to the initial notice, but rather extends through the continuous process of asset seizure.

The Backdrop: A Dispute Over Notice and Time

The petitioners, Vimla Kashyap and others, found themselves in a legal battle after being served with a property possession notice for an outstanding loan facility. While the respondent financial institution initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, the petitioners argued they were never served with the requisite notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4).

It was only through an order passed by the Additional District Magistrate (ADM) under Section 14, aimed at taking physical possession, that the petitioners discovered the ongoing enforcement. The Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) had previously dismissed their plea, viewing the claim as "hopelessly barred by limitation" since it was filed long after the initial Section 13(4) notice date in 2023.

The Conflict of Perspectives

Counsel for the petitioners contended that the actions taken under Section 14—granting the power to take physical possession—are an extension of the mechanisms initiated under Section 13(4). Therefore, the entire process should be viewed as a "continuous cause of action."

Conversely, the respondents insisted that because the notice under Section 13(4) had been served, the limitation clock for filing a Securitisation Application (S.A.) began ticking immediately, rendering any subsequent challenges legally ineffective.

Examining the Legal Fabric

Justice Pankaj Bhatia’s analysis leaned heavily on Supreme Court precedents, specifically Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India and Hindon Forge Private Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh . The Court emphasized that the SARFAESI Act is designed to protect borrowers from arbitrary exercise of power by secured creditors.

The Court observed: > "Section 14 is a continuance of the proceedings under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and would give a cause of action to file an S.A. before the DRT."

By affirming that Section 14 proceedings fall within the ambit of Section 17(1), the Court underscored that the borrower’s right to challenge the bank’s actions remains alive throughout the various stages of enforcement. To hold otherwise would insulate the creditor’s actions from judicial review, effectively nullifying the protection intended for the borrower.

Key Observations

• On the nature of S.A. proceedings: "Proceedings under Section 17 of the Act, in fact, are not appellate proceedings. It seems to be a misnomer. In fact it is the initial action which is brought before a forum... raising grievance against the action or measures taken by one of the parties to the contract."
• On the Limitation Logic: "The limitation has to be calculated from the date of the last action against which the person aggrieved had approached the DRT under Section 17."
• On Judicial Propriety: "The DRT had erred in recording on one hand that S.A. was hopelessly barred by limitation and on the other hand, has gone into the correctness of the orders passed as well as compliances done by the respondents."

Final Verdict: A Reset for the DRT

Finding the DRT’s dismissal of the S.A. to be "utterly erroneous," the High Court quashed the impugned order dated June 17, 2025. The case has been remanded back to the DRT for a fresh decision on its merits. Until the interim applications are resolved, the Court has ordered both parties to maintain the status quo regarding the title and possession of the property.

This ruling serves as a vital check on the procedural handling of recovery cases, ensuring that the wheels of justice turn in accordance with the spirit of the Act, rather than rigid, technical interpretations that may deprive citizens of their right to representation.