Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. Placing reliance on the law declared by the Apex Court in M/s.Transcore V. Union of India (AIR 2007 SC 712), the learned counsel for the Bank submits that the rights and liberties of the Bank to proceed with the steps under the SARFAESI Act, notwithstanding the proceedings pending before the DRT or elsewhere, stands settled. This being the position, the steps taken  by the Bank resorting to the remedy under the SARFAESI Act are not liable to be clubbed with the case put forth in the O.A pending before the DRT and the petitioners are at liberty to challenge the steps availing the remedy under the SARFAESI Act. But the prayer to have joint trial is not liable to be entertained and as such, the petitions filed for joint trial, have been rightly dismissed by the Tribunal, submits the learned counsel.

it would notTherefore,

6. as the field of both the Acts is different, be proper as well as legal to grant the relief sought for in this I.A. As stated, the frame and the scheme of both the legislations are entirely different. The decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the landmark judgment in M/s.Transcore's case is worth recalling here in this contex. It has been observed in the said judgment at various stages that the SARFAESI Act, 2002 proceeds on the basis that the liability of the borrower to pay has crystalised; that the debt has become due. Whereas the RDDBFI Act provides for adjudication of the disputes. Proceedings under one statute cannot mix with other statute and such mixing is against the intention of the legislature. Therefore, the contentions of the petitioner is quite unsustainable and this IA is only to be dismissed.