The Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable only in respect of the claim raised by the secured creditor under Section 36 of the Act, and not to the other provisions of the Act. The claim of the secured creditor against secured assets survives in the hands of the legal heirs after the death of the borrower.

1. The petitioner has sought review of the order passed by this Court on 6.10.2017 whereby Writ Appeal No. 110/2017 was dismissed against an order impleading the present petitioner as legal heir of the deceased/borrower in proceedings under Section 14 Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act').

2. The argument of the petitioner is that in terms of Article 121 of Schedule I of the Limitation Act, 1963, failure to implead legal heir within 90 days leads to abatement of the proceedings and thereafter legal heir can be impleaded only if a petition is filed for setting aside abatement.

3. Section 36 of the Act contemplates that 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 as prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1963. Meaning thereby, the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable in respect of the action to be taken by the secured creditor only. Other provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the Act. Similar question has been examined by the Supreme Court in a judgment reported as International Asset Reconstruction Company of India Ltd. Vs. Official Liquidator of Aldrich Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and others, AIR 2017 SC 5013, wherein it has been held while examining the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 that the Tribunal is not a Civil Court though it has been conferred with powers to summon and enforce attendance of the witnesses, discovery and production of the documents and receive evidence on affidavits etc. and that the Limitation Act is not applicable to the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The Supreme Court held as under:-

“14. The RDB Act (Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993) is special law. The proceedings are before a statutory Tribunal. The scheme of the Act manifestly provides that the Legislature has provided for application of the Limitation Act to original proceedings before the Tribunal under Section 19 only. The appellate tribunal has been conferred the power to condone delay beyond 45 days under Section 20(3) of the Act. The proceedings before the Recovery officer are not before a Tribunal. Section 24 is limited in its application to proceedings before the Tribunal originating under Section 19 only. The exclusion of any provision for extension of time by the Tribunal in preferring an appeal under Section 30 of the Act makes it manifest that the legislative intent for exclusion was express. The application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act by resort to Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 therefore does not arise. The prescribed period of 30 days under Section 30(1) of the RDB Act for preferring an appeal against the order of the Recovery Officer therefore cannot be condoned by application of Section 5 of the Limitation.”

4. In view the aforesaid judgment and the fact that Section 36 of the Act has given limited application of Limitation Act to the proceedings under the Act only in respect of the claim raised by the secured creditor, therefore, the other provisions of the Limitation Act are not applicable in respect of proceedings under the Act. In the present case, after death of the borrower, the present petitioner was impleaded as legal heir of the borrower, not within 90 days or 150 days, but after two years. After the death of the borrower, the claim of the secured creditor against secured assets does not come to an end, but survives in the hands of the legal heirs. Therefore, the Bank is justified in continuing the proceedings under Section 14 of the Act against the legal heirs in respect of the secured assets.

5. In view thereof, we do not find any merit in the present review petition as there is no error apparent on record. The same is dismissed.