The Act of 2002 has an overriding effect over the Act of 1993, and until the remedy under the Act of 2002 is exhausted, the Bank is debarred from availing the remedy before the Tribunal under the Act of 1993.

This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the respondent State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank") against the order dated 27th August, 2012 made by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 8746 of 2012.

2. Tile respondent M/s. Purnea Cold Storage (hereinafter referred to as "the Petitioner/writ Petitioner"), a proprietary firm, approached this Court through its proprietor Amar Nath Tiwari under Article 226 of the Constitution in above C.W.J.C. No.8746 of 2012.

3. With the financial assistance of the State Bank of India, the predecessor of the petitioner had set-up a cold storage and ice factory as early as in 1972. In 1992, the credit facility was enhanced. Over the years, the petitioner claims to have repaid the original and the loan received in 1992. The petitioner availed of further financial assistance for expansion of his business in 1998. In 2005, a huge loan was borrowed by the petitioner for modernization of the plant and machinery. In 2008, the Bank advanced the credit facility to the extent of Rs. 4,94,40,000.00. The petitioner offered certain land in security. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a debtor in default. A huge sum is outstanding against the petitioner. Ultimately, on 20th December, 2009, the petitioner was classified as NPA (Non-Performing Asset).

4. The Bank, with a view to recovering its money, resorted to the remedy under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2002"). Though the land offered in security was put up for public auction, no buyer came forth. The attempt of the Bank to realise its outstanding dues by resorting to the remedy under the Act of 2002, thus, failed. The Bank, therefore, approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Patna (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") constituted under the Recovery of Debts Due to. Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1993") for recovery of its dues under Section 19 of the Act of 1993 in Original Application No. 83 of 2011.

5. We may note here that feeling aggrieved by the notice of demand dated 18th August, 2010 issued by the Bank under Section 13(2) of the Act of 2002, the petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in CWJC No. 15909 of 2010. The said petition came to be dismissed (Coram: RK Datta, J.) on 16th November, 2010. The Bank proceeded further under Section 13 of the Act of 2002 to give notice for public auction of the secured assets. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner again approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in C.W.J.C. No. 3581 of 2011. The said petition was permitted to be withdrawn (Coram: S.N. Hussain, J.) on 25th February, 2011 with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the remedy available under the law. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner approached the Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act of 2002 in SA No. 81 of 2011. The said Application was disposed of by the Tribunal on 18th January, 2012 with a direction to the petitioner t6 file representation against the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Act of 2002. Pursuant to the said direction, the petitioner lodged its objections against the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act as envisaged by Section 13(3-A) of the Act of 2002. The said objections were considered by the Bank and were rejected on 18th February, 2012.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in above C.W.J.C. No. 8746 of 2012 to challenge the above referred order dated 18th January, 2012 made by the Tribunal and the decision dated 18th February, 2012 of the Bank on the objections filed by the petitioner.

7. According to the petitioner, the Bank having resorted to the remedy available under the Act of 2002, the Bank is debarred from approaching the Tribunal for recovery of its dues until remedy under the A