Home  /  Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993  /  Section 24

Section 24: Limitation

Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 1993
Section 23 All 37 Sections of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 Section 25

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 24

Section 24 applies the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 to original applications made to a Debts Recovery Tribunal, ensuring that time-barred claims cannot be entertained.

  • Statutory Incorporation of Limitation Act: Section 24 explicitly commands that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) shall, as far as may be, apply to an application made to a Tribunal under the Act.
  • Three-Year Commercial Debt Rule: Original Applications under Section 19 must be instituted within three years from the date of default, or within three years from the date of a valid acknowledgment of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act or part-payment under Section 19 thereof.
  • Twelve-Year Mortgage Enforcement Period: Where the debt is secured by a mortgage of immovable property, Article 62 of the Limitation Act applies, permitting an enforcement period of twelve years from the date the money sued for becomes due.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • Baleshwar Dayal Jaiswal v. Bank of India (2016) 1 SCC 444: The Supreme Court held that by virtue of Section 24, the Limitation Act applies to proceedings under the RDB Act, and Section 5 of the Limitation Act is available to condone delay in filing appeals before the DRAT under Section 20 of the RDB Act and Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act.
  • International Asset Reconstruction Co. of India Ltd. v. Official Liquidator (2017) 16 SCC 137: A 2-Judge Bench held that Section 24 applies the Limitation Act only to an 'application made to a Tribunal' under Section 19. Consequently, Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked to condone delay in an appeal filed before the DRT under Section 30 against an order of the Recovery Officer.
  • State Bank of India v. B.S. Agricultural Industries (2009) 5 SCC 316: The Supreme Court ruled that Section 3 of the Limitation Act casts a mandatory duty on the Tribunal to dismiss any application instituted after the prescribed period of limitation, even if limitation has not been set up as a defence.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

When drafting an Original Application for a bank, meticulously plead each balance confirmation letter, revival letter, and ledger credit entry under Sections 18 and 19 of the Limitation Act to establish continuous subsistence of the claim. If defending a borrower, scrutinize whether the balance confirmation was obtained after the original three-year limitation period had already expired; an acknowledgment made after the expiry of limitation cannot revive a dead debt under Section 18.

Section 23 All 37 Sections of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 Section 25