P.K.Deb, J. - (1.) This instant revisional application has been directed against the order dated June 2, 2006 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Kolkata in T.A. No. 03 of 2005, whereby the applicant had been granted liberty to proceed with the Securitisation Act of 2002 for the enforcement of its security interest against all the defendants.
(2.) In moving the revisional application, Mr. D. Basak, learned Counsel, has submitted that in disposing of the application ex parts without serving notice upon the petitioner, the Tribunal flouted principle of natural justice. Erroneous assumption of jurisdiction by the Tribunal is, thus, liable to be set aside in revision.
(3.) Contending that the ex parte order had been passed in haste, Mr. Basak has contended that in view of the provision contained in the proviso to section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the Banks or the Financial Institutions are required to elect the forum for seeking remedy for realization of their dues Citing the case of M/S. Kalyani Sales Company & Anr. vs. Union of India & Anr., reported in 2006 (1) Bank CLR 441, it is submitted that there cannot be two parallel proceedings under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 for realization of its due and enforcement of the security. As provided in proviso to section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal is to be withdrawn for prosecution of the Debtor under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Permission having been obtained to prosecute under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 without withdrawal of the application for recovery of the amount under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the aforesaid order is liable to be set aside. The case of Kripal Springs (India) Ltd. & Anr. vs. Andhra Bank & Ors., reported in 2006(130) Comp Cas 691 (Orissa) has also been cited to vindicate the stand that with the amendment of the Securitisation Act, running of two parallel proceedings has been prohibited. The Banks or Financial Institutions are required to elect either of the two proceedings. Consequently, if the Bank intends to take action under the Securitisation Act, it is required to withdraw the application under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.;