RONOJIT KUMAR MITRA, J.

( 1 ) IN order to adjudicate the disputes between the parties in this application, the court was to consider whether the non obstante clauses as contained in the Companies Act, 1956, and the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, were conflicting, and if so then which was to prevail. For the sake of brevity, I shall in this order refer to the two enactments as the "companies Act" and the "debt Recovery Act", respectively.

( 2 ) IT was contended by the advocate on behalf of the petitioner, that the suit which was now pending before this court, ought to be transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 31 (1) of the Debt Recovery Act. The Debt Recovery Tribunal, in this order shall in short be referred to as "the Tribunal". It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the Debt Recovery Act was a later enactment and the non obstante clause contained in it would be applicable in preference to the non obstante clause in the Companies Act, which in point of time was an earlier legislation. In support of his submissions he cited and relied on the decision in Sarwan Singh v. Kasturi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document