When the Limitation Clock Starts Running for Applications Before the Under Section 24
A recurring question before borrowers, banks, and financial institutions is: when is the period of limitation calculated for filing an application under ? The answer determines whether a recovery application, an objection, or an appeal before the (DRT) is maintainable or hopelessly . This post breaks down how the limitation period is computed, which statutory provisions govern it, and where the has drawn the line on .
Section 24 of the RDB Act Brings in the
(formerly the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993) expressly provides that the provisions of the shall, , apply to an application made to a Tribunal. This means the time within which an application must be filed before the DRT is, in principle, governed by the general framework of the Limitation Act 2015 5 Supreme 642.
Because the RDB Act is itself a special law, becomes relevant. That provision states that where a special or local law prescribes a different period of limitation for any suit, appeal, or application, the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) of the Limitation Act — including Section 5 on — apply only insofar as they are not by the special law 2023 1 Supreme 106.
How the Period Is Actually Calculated
- Original applications under : These are treated as applications to which the Limitation Act applies through Section 24. The general residuary rule, , prescribes 2024 0 Supreme(Guj) 1196.
- For special periods prescribed under other statutes, the calculation typically begins from the date of the triggering event — such as the date of the impugned order, the date of a sale notice, or the date of a demand notice.
- Extensions and exclusions: Principles such as acknowledgment of debt under and part-payment under Section 19 can extend the prescribed period where the facts support them 2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 3563.
Where Is Excluded — the Key Distinction
The 's decision in , , is the controlling precedent. The Court held:
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.
In other words:
- Section 19 applications (original proceedings): Section 24 applies the Limitation Act, including Sections 4 to 24, in full
VS Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal
. - Appeals under (against a Recovery Officer's order): does not apply. Section 24 is limited to proceedings before the Tribunal originating under Section 19, and the appellate route has its own built-in condonation power under Section 20(3), which excludes the general Limitation Act 2017 7 Supreme 606 and 2023 1 Supreme 106.
- Review applications under : These must be filed within 30 days, and beyond that there is no power to condone delay 2015 5 Supreme 642.
SARFAESI Applications Under Section 17 — A Split in Judicial Opinion
For applications under , which prescribe 45 days for filing, High Courts took differing views on whether the DRT can condone delay. The in 's case reasoned that since requires Section 17 applications to be disposed of under the RDB Act, and Section 24 of the RDB Act imports the Limitation Act, Section 5 condonation would apply 2015 5 Supreme 642.
The contrary view — reflected in and — is that where a special Act contains no condonation provision, Section 5 has no role. However, decisions of the , later endorsed by the in the SARFAESI context, hold that in the absence of any provision excluding the Limitation Act, applications for are maintainable before the DRT under Section 17 and the DRAT under Section 18, with being a question of fact in each case
VS Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal
2013 0 Supreme(P&H) 346 and 2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 1693.A Parallel Insight From Insolvency Jurisprudence
The same Article 137 framework of three years from accrual of the right to apply governs applications under the via . Courts have consistently held that where default occurred more than three years before filing, the application is barred, subject to Section 5 condonation and extension events such as a decree, acknowledgment, or the Covid exclusion period 2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 492 and 2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 382 and 2024 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 1183.
Key Takeaways
- Section 24 of the RDB Act makes the applicable to Tribunal applications; for Section 19 applications, the residuary three-year period under Article 137 runs from the date the right to apply accrues.
- The phrase allows the special statute to exclude the Limitation Act — and the has found such express exclusion for Section 30 appeals and review applications.
- For Section 17 SARFAESI applications, the prevailing view permits under the Limitation Act, since no exclusionary provision exists.
- If delay has occurred, litigants should generally demonstrate sufficient cause under the specific applicable provision rather than assume Section 5 is automatically available.
This discussion is intended as general legal information and may not reflect the nuances of any particular case; the specific facts and the governing statute should always be examined carefully before filing.
#RDDBAct #DebtRecoveryTribunal #LimitationAct #SARFAESI #BankingLaw
