Bombay High Court Allows Financial Institution's Petition Under Section 31(1)(aa) of SFC Act for Enforcement of Mortgage Against Guarantors. The court held that the petition is maintainable against guarantors and not barred by limitation under Article 137 of Limitation Act.

High Court: Bombay High Court In Favour of Prosecution
  • 26
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, SICOM Limited, a financial institution, filed a petition under Section 31(1)(aa) of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, seeking enforcement of a mortgage executed by the respondent company Sanjivani Agro Industries and its guarantors. The loan of over Rs.110 lacs was sanctioned in February 1993 and secured by an indenture of mortgage dated 16.8.1993. The respondents, including guarantors, defaulted on repayment. The court examined whether the petition was maintainable against the guarantors and whether it was barred by limitation. The court held that Section 31(1)(aa) permits enforcement of the mortgage against the mortgagor, which includes guarantors who have mortgaged their properties. On limitation, the court applied Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, holding that the right to apply accrues on default, and the petition was filed within three years from the date of default. The court allowed the petition and directed enforcement of the mortgage.

Headnote

A) State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 - Section 31(1)(aa) - Enforcement of Mortgage - Petition under Section 31(1)(aa) is maintainable against guarantors who have mortgaged their properties to secure the loan of the principal debtor. The court held that the provision allows the financial corporation to enforce the mortgage against the mortgagor, who may be the borrower or a guarantor. (Paras 1-10)

B) Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 137 - Limitation for Petition under Section 31(1)(aa) - The period of limitation for filing a petition under Section 31(1)(aa) of the SFC Act is governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which provides a period of three years from the date when the right to apply accrues. The court held that the right to apply accrues when the loan becomes due and the borrower defaults. (Paras 11-15)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petition under Section 31(1)(aa) of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 is maintainable against the guarantors and whether it is barred by limitation.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the petitions and directed enforcement of the mortgage against the respondents.

Law Points

  • Enforcement of mortgage under Section 31(1)(aa) of State Financial Corporations Act
  • 1951
  • Liability of guarantors
  • Limitation for filing petition under SFC Act
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2005:BHC-OS:3174

Miscellaneous Petition No.37 of 2001, 38 of 2001, 39 of 2001, 22 of 2002

2005-03-14

S.U. Kamdar

2005:BHC-OS:3174

Kevil Setalvad with M.P. Rege for the petitioner, Mr. L. Bansal for respondent nos.1, 5, 7 and 8

SICOM Limited

Shri Balkrishna Himmatramka and Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Petition under Section 31(1)(aa) of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 for enforcement of mortgage.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner SICOM Limited sought enforcement of mortgage against the respondent company and guarantors for recovery of loan amount.

Filing Reason

Default in repayment of loan by the borrower company and guarantors.

Issues

Whether the petition under Section 31(1)(aa) of the SFC Act is maintainable against the guarantors? Whether the petition is barred by limitation?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the petition is maintainable against guarantors as they are mortgagors. Respondents contended that the petition is not maintainable against guarantors and is barred by limitation.

Ratio Decidendi

A petition under Section 31(1)(aa) of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 is maintainable against guarantors who have mortgaged their properties to secure the loan of the principal debtor. The period of limitation for such a petition is three years under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which starts from the date of default.

Judgment Excerpts

The present petition is filed under the provisions of section 31(1)(aa) of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. The company executed an indenture of mortgage dated 16.8.1993 securing the said loan amount and mortgaged the plant, machinery and building of the company with the said financial institution.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed Miscellaneous Petition No.37 of 2001, 38 of 2001, 39 of 2001, and 22 of 2002 under Section 31(1)(aa) of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. The court heard the petitions and delivered judgment on 14th March 2005.

Acts & Sections

  • State Financial Corporations Act, 1951: 31(1)(aa)
  • Limitation Act, 1963: Article 137
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Appeal by State Financial Corporation Against Injunction Restraining Possession Under Section 29 of SFC Act. Statutory Right to Take Possession Cannot Be Injuncted Without Proof of Arbitrariness.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Financial Institution's Petition Under Section 31(1)(aa) of SFC Act for Enforcement of Mortgage Against Guarantors. The court held that the petition is maintainable against guarantors and not barred by limitation under Articl...