RC was duly implemented as the house was attached. RC is well within force and the RC will not be barred as stated. As land revenue process for recovery can continue.

𝙷𝚊𝚜 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚘𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚛 𝚕𝚎𝚗𝚍𝚎𝚛 𝚝𝚊𝚔𝚎𝚗 𝚊𝚗𝚢 𝚛𝚎𝚌𝚘𝚟𝚎𝚛𝚢 𝚊𝚌𝚝𝚒𝚘𝚗? 𝙳𝚘 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚢 𝚑𝚊𝚟𝚎 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚏𝚒𝚛𝚜𝚝 𝚌𝚑𝚊𝚛𝚐𝚎? 𝙸𝚏 𝚜𝚘, 𝚊𝚏𝚝𝚎𝚛 𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚒𝚛 𝚌𝚑𝚊𝚛𝚐𝚎 𝚒𝚜 𝚜𝚊𝚝𝚒𝚜𝚏𝚒𝚎𝚍, 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚜𝚞𝚛𝚙𝚕𝚞𝚜, 𝚒𝚏 𝚊𝚗𝚢, 𝚜𝚑𝚊𝚕𝚕 𝚊𝚞𝚝𝚘𝚖𝚊𝚝𝚒𝚌𝚊𝚕𝚕𝚢 𝚐𝚘 𝚝𝚘 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚜𝚎𝚌𝚘𝚗𝚍 𝚕𝚎𝚗𝚍𝚎𝚛 𝚠𝚑𝚘 𝚑𝚊𝚜 𝚘𝚋𝚝𝚊𝚒𝚗𝚎𝚍 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚁𝙲 𝚗𝚘𝚠 𝚒𝚗 𝙳𝚁𝚃. 

Yes. Principle of limitation is misunderstood. 

Attachment was under RC certificate and as RC  was not challenged nor the same was set aside hence is fully valid. You have every right to challenge but after lapse of 7 years period of limitation has already expired. Attachment is part of RC and is fully valid. attachment is not illegal. 

They can only attach secured asset 

Recovery certificate would be barred by limitation after period of 12 years 

It will not be in force after 12 years 

You can take the plea that claim is barred by limitation 

Personal property standing in name of borrower can be attached 

Recovery certificate issued in 2014 is barred by limitation. However if the bank has taken steps to recover by attaching the property the limitation will not be applicable. It will be  considered as the  implimentation  under process.

 it is time barred as per the provision when only no action taken, clarification can be sought by a Court order by challenging the same on ground of limitation.

However the immovable property in the name of the borrower can be attached, as the attachment is legal.

- Yes , the limitation of recovery is limited to 12 years ,and hence the recovery will be time barred after 12 years

- Further, even if the house is not mortgaged , then also the bank has authority to take legal action for the attachment of the property . 

- If the order was passed in 2014, then after a long period the appeal will not maintainable. 

The Debt Recovery Act was enacted for expeditious adjudication and recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions.

Section 19(1) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 provides that where a bank or a financial institution has to recover any debt from any person, it may make an application to the Tribunal.

After observing due process of law the Tribunal passes its final order. The tribunal shall send the final order and a certificate for recovery along with the order. 

In case the borrower does not pay the ordered amount, the recovery certificate is then executed by the recovery officer of the DRT. 

The supreme court held that a recovery certificate entails a fresh debt and consequently, a right to sue. The Court held that a liability in respect of a claim arising out of a recovery certificate would be a ‘financial debt’ under the Code and therefore, the holder of a recovery certificate would be a financial creditor. Thus, such a financial creditor would be entitled to initiate insolvency resolution process of the defaulting debtor, if the application is filed within a period of three years from the date of issuance of the recovery certificate by the DRT.

If your house was attached by the order of DRT via recovery certificate in the year 2017, it can be considered that the action taken on the basis of recovery certificate was within three years, hence it is valid. 

The fact that this property was already mortgaged with another financing institution is a subsequent development however Section 26-E. Priority to secured creditors. – Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, after the registration of security interest, the debts due to any secured creditor shall be paid in priority over all other debts and all revenues, taxes, cesses and other rates payable to the Central Government or State Government or local authority.”

The TPA does not invalidate any kind of subsequent remortgage in whatsoever manner.

The recovery action and the process as per provision of law on the basis of the recovery certificate is reportedly initiated by the lender and accordingly the house property was attached in the year 2017 itself, the subsequent development in the name of recovery by the first mortgagor cannot invalidate the recovery process through recovery certificate citing limitation  as reason. 

Therefore in my view the recovery certificate is very much well within the limitation.

Article 62 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act) prescribes limitation period in case of equitable mortgage i.e. 12 years.

Hence the first mortgagor may be waiting for the 12 years period to initiate recovery process

The appeal against the recovery certificate should have been taken up within the limitation period prescribed for appeal, it will be barred by limitation at this stage that too after a span of 1 years. 

Any action towrds appeal at this stage may be considered as an after thought and may not be entertained after a lapse of 11 years especially on the grounds that you would like to argue upon, because this was a matter of trial where you failed to express this provision of law neither had taken any steps to prefer an appeal venting out your grievances.

Besides you may not have any strong reason seeking to condone delay in approaching the appellate court for the unjustified and long period of delay. 

As you have rightly said, under the CGTMSE scheme, no collateral should be insisted upon. However, if you have willingly offered it, you are now estopped from taking that plea.

Dear Client,