Covering Law & Justice.

SARFAESI Act Section 14 Actions Provide Continuing Cause of Action: Allahabad High Court Overturns DRT Order

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) has issued a significant clarification regarding the limitation period under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. In the matter of Vimla Kashyap and Ors vs Union of India and Ors , the Court ruled that actions taken under Section 14 of the Act form a continuous cause of action with earlier steps under Section 13(4), thereby rejecting the notion that the limitation window for a Securitisation Application (S.A.) is strictly restricted to the date of the initial notice of possession.

A Struggle Against Arbitrary Dismissals

The petitioners had approached the High Court challenging an order by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Lucknow, which had dismissed their S.A. as "hopelessly barred by limitation." The DRT’s stance was that the limitation period started from the date of the notice issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act back in 2023.

The petitioners, however, argued that they only became aware of the proceedings upon the affixation of an information notice on their property regarding a Section 14 order by the Additional District Magistrate. The High Court, having previously criticized the DRT for disposing of cases without proper application of mind, found the Tribunal's reasoning in the remanded matter to be once again flawed.

Arguments on the Limitation Clock

Counsel for the petitioners contended that Section 13(4) and Section 14 are intrinsically linked. They argued that the initiation of Section 14 proceedings constitutes a separate, continuing grievance that allows the borrower to approach the DRT. It was argued that the DRT acted paradoxically by declaring the S.A. time-barred while simultaneously delving into the merits of the Section 14 order—an area it should not have touched if it truly believed the matter was beyond limitation.

The respondent bank countered that once a finding regarding the service of the Section 13(4) notice was recorded, the limitation was fixed, and the petitioners’ remedy was merely an appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act.

Legal Analysis: The "Continuing Cause of Action"

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Bhatia dismantled the DRT’s restrictive interpretation by referencing foundational Supreme Court precedents, including Mardia Chemicals Ltd. vs Union of India and Hindon Forge Private Limited vs The State of Uttar Pradesh .

The Court reaffirmed that proceedings under Section 17 are akin to an initial "suit" rather than an appellate proceeding. The rationale is that the recovery process under the SARFAESI Act is a sequence, and a borrower is entitled to challenge specific actions within that sequence:

1. Continuous Flow: The Court emphasized that Section 14 is a legitimate continuation of the recovery process initiated under Section 13(4).
2. Right to Judicial Review: The object of the Act is to provide a safety net for borrowers against wrongful actions by secured creditors. If a borrower has to wait solely for a sale notice, the protection provided by the Act would be effectively "stultified."
3. Holistic Approach: Limitation must be calculated based on the specific action against which the borrower is aggrieved.

Key Observations

The High Court’s judgment highlights the protective intent of the law:

> "The starting point of limitation has been considered by the DRT to be the service of notice under Section 13(4) and not the knowledge derived by the petitioners as pleaded by them, from the date when the order under Section 14 was affixed."

> "Section 14 is 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. All the steps contemplated under Section 13(4), give a cause of action... and are a continuous cause of action."

> "The order impugned of the DRT, impugned herein, further merits interference as on the one hand the DRT had observed that the S.A. was hopelessly barred by limitation and on the other hand, had proceeded to make an observations with regard to the action of the respondents."

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court quashed the DRT’s order of June 17, 2025, and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on merit. Furthermore, in an effort to maintain stability, the Court ordered a status quo regarding the title and possession of the property until the interim application is disposed of by the DRT, which the Court directed should happen within one month.

This judgment serves as a vital reminder to Tribunals that summary dismissals on the grounds of limitation must not undermine the statutory rights of borrowers. By recognizing Section 14 proceedings as a continuing cause of action, the High Court has reinforced that the mechanism meant to check the power of secured creditors remains both accessible and robust.