1. We have heard at length the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents. Admit. Learned counsel appearing for respective respondents waive service. By consent, heard forthwith.

2. Since common questions of law and facts arise in both these appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The short but very important point which arises for consideration in both these appeals is whether an insolvency notice can be issued under Section 9 (2) of the Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act, 1909, hereinafter called as “the Insolvency Act”, on the basis of a recovery certificate issued under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1994, hereinafter called as “the RD Act”.

4. As a prelude to the above point for consideration, it would be necessary to ascertain the meaning of “decree or order “ under Section 9 (2) of the Insolvency Act as well as that of the expression “of any Court” under Section 9 (1) (e) of the Insolvency Act. It would be also necessary to know whether the Tribunal constituted under the RD Act is the Court within the meaning of the said expression under the Insolvency Act and in particular Section 9 thereof and whether the recovery certificate issued under the RD Act is either a decree or order within the meaning of the said expressions under the Insolvency Act. And finally, to know whether the procedure prescribed and the forum provided under the RD Act are exclusive in nature and bar any other proceeding and forum for realisation of the debt to the Banks and Financial Institutions.

5. In both these matters, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai, issued recovery certificates under the RD Act pursuant to which the Insolvency Registrar, at the instance of the appellants, issued insolvency notices under the provisions of Section 9 (2) of the Insolvency Act. Upon service of the said notices on the respondents, they took out Notices of Motion under the provisions of Section 9 (5) of the Insolvency Act seeking to set aside the said insolvency notices, inter alia, on the ground that on the basis of the recovery certificate issued by DRT, no insolvency notice can be issued under the provisions of Section 9 (2) of the Insolvency Act. The said Notices of Motion were sought to be opposed by the appellants on the ground that there is no legal impediment in issuing insolvency notice on the basis of the recovery certificate or the order made by DRT under the RD Act. Reliance was placed in the decision of the learned single Judge in the matter of Deepak Cochhar & anr. vs. Indusind Bank Ltd.1. The learned single Judge after considering the rival contentions and placing reliance in the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Paramjeet Singh Patheja v. ICDS Ltd.2 held that on the basis of recovery certificate issued by DRT constituted under the RD Act, no insolvency notice under Section 9 (2) of the Insolvency Act can be issued.

6. Section 9 (1) of the Insolvency Act enumerates the acts of insolvency on the part of a debtor and provides that on commission of such 1 2006 (3) Bom.C.R. 520 2 JT 2006 (10) SC 41 insolvency act or acts by a debtor, a notice in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 9 can be issued and served upon him by his creditor provided that the latter is armed with a decree or order for payment of money by such debtor to the creditor. The provisions of law comprised under Section 9 of the Insolvency Act read thus: “9. Acts of insolvency.( 1) A debtor commits an act of insolvency in each of the following cases, namely:- (a) if, in the States or elsewhere, he makes a transfer of all or substantially all his property to a third person for the benefit of his creditors generally; (b) if, in the States or elsewhere, he makes a transfer of his property or of any part thereof with intent to defeat or delay his creditors; ( c) if, in the States or elsewhere he makes any transfer of his propert