IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P., J.
Subrahmanian S/o Nampan – Petitioner
Versus
The District Collector, Malappuram – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 34607 of 2015
Decided On : 04-07-2024
LIMITATION - REVENUE RECOVERY PROCEEDINGS - Limitation Act, 1963; Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968; Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 - The court discussed the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968, in the context of revenue recovery proceedings initiated against a guarantor. It highlighted that acknowledgments of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act reset the limitation period. The court also analyzed the relationship between the SARFAESI Act and the RDB Act, concluding that the provisions of the SARFAESI Act do not bar revenue recovery proceedings under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, as the wording in the statutes differs significantly.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged revenue recovery proceedings initiated against him for amounts due to the Indian Overseas Bank, arguing that the proceedings were barred by limitation. The petitioner was a guarantor for a loan extended to another party.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the acknowledgment of debt by the petitioner and the principal debtor reset the limitation period, thus the proceedings were not barred. It also concluded that the provisions of the SARFAESI Act did not preclude the revenue recovery proceedings under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act.
Issues: Whether the revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner were barred by limitation and whether the SARFAESI Act barred such proceedings under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that acknowledgments of debt reset the limitation period under the Limitation Act, and the provisions of the SARFAESI Act do not override the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, as the statutory language differs significantly.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the validity of the revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
GOPINATH P., J.
1. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against him for the recovery of certain amounts due to the Indian Overseas Bank. The petitioner was a guarantor in respect of a loan extended to the 4th respondent. It is the case of the petitioner in the writ petition that the revenue recovery proceedings are barred by limitation.
2. A statement was filed by the 3rd respondent where it is stated that there is no question of the recovery proceedings being barred by limitation, as there was an acknowledgement of debt for the purposes of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Reference is made in this regard to Exts.R3(b) and R3(c). Ext.R3(b) is dated 24-11-2014 and Ext.R3(c) is dated 13-12-2012. Ext.R3(b) is executed by the borrower, while Ext.R3(c) is executed by the petitioner. It is not disputed that if the date of Ext.R3(c) acknowledgement of debt by the petitioner is taken into consideration, the revenue recovery proceedings are not barred by limitation. It is also pointed out that the personal guarantee executed by the petitioner clearly indicates that any acknowledgement by the principal debtor in relation to the subject matter of the guarantee shall be binding on the guarantor also. Therefore, it is not possible for this Court to hold that the proceedings under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968, initiated against the petitioner are barred by limitation.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner then contended on the strength of the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Sam J. Mathew v. Deputy Tahsildar (RR), 2019 (3) KLT 641, that the revenue recovery proceedings are barred on account of the provisions contained in the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SARFAESI Act’). It is submitted that for the same reasons as found in the judgment of this Court in Sam J. Mathew (Supra) and in the light of the provisions contained in the SARFAESI Act, the revenue recovery proceedings would be barred.
4. A perusal of the judgment of this Court in Sam J. Mathew (Supra) indicates that this Court had followed the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Unique Butyle Tube Industries (P) Ltd. v. U.P. Financial Corporation and Others, (2003) 2 SCC 455 and had held that in the light of the provisions contained in Section 19 and Section 34 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘RDB Act’) and in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Unique Butyle Tube Industries (Supra), revenue recovery proceedings in respect of any matter where the bank or financial instructions could have invoked the jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal would stand barred, as Section 34 of the RDB Act does not save action under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, Section 37 of the SARFAESI Act also contains a provision similar to that contained in Section 34 of the RDB Act and therefore, since the bank is entitled to initiate proceedings against the petitioner under the SARFAESI Act, the revenue recovery proceedings are barred.
5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. Section 34 of the RDB Act reads as follows:
(1) Save as provided under sub-section (2), the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.
(2) The provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (63 of 1951), the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), the Industrial Recon
Sam J. Mathew v. Deputy Tahsildar (RR)
Unique Butyle Tube Industries (P) Ltd. v. U.P. Financial Corporation and Others
AI
Article 137 of Limitation Act reads as description of application.
Debt is not the same thing as right of action for its recovery – While debt is right in creditor with correlative duty on debtor right of action for recovery is in nature of a legal power.
Ext.P4 notification enhancing DRT's pecuniary limit to Rs.20 lakhs supersedes previous restrictions on debt recovery actions below this threshold.
Rule 68B of the Income Tax Act does not apply to recovery proceedings under the RDDB Act; the limitation period for such recoveries is governed by the Limitation Act.
The DRT has the authority to condone delays in applications under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, applying the Limitation Act provisions.
The DRT must consider the Limitation Act's provisions regarding the condonation of delay in SARFAESI applications, ensuring just consideration of delay reasons.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.