JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. Appellant has sought leave to prefer an appeal against the judgment and order dated June 30, 2025 passed in CA 136 of 2017.

2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, the appellant is a securitization company within the meaning of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002. The appellant has purchased the claim of Stressed Asset Stabilization Fund as against the respondent. He has contended that, the appellant is a secured creditor of the respondent.

3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, a scheme of compromise between the respondent and its secured creditors was sanctioned by the Hon’ble High Court on January 14, 2009. He has referred to the scheme of compromise. He has contended that, the respondent was liable to discharge its liabilities as sanctioned under the scheme to the secured creditors. Respondent has failed to do so. Consequently, the then secured creditor of the respondent on November 2, 2011 has issued a notice under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002 to the respondent. The respondent has replied thereto on November 18, 2011.

4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, the respondent applied under Section 634 of the Companies Act, 1956 for execution of the scheme of compromise. He has referred to the execution petition. He has submitted that, in such execution petition, the impugned judgment and order dated June 30, 2025 was passed.

5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, the respondent invoked Section 634 of the Act of 1956 for executing the scheme of compromise sanctioned on January 14, 2009. He has pointed out that, the secured creditor filed a proceeding under the Recovery of Debts due to Bank and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 which was pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Such proceedings had been filed prior to the scheme of compromise being sanctioned. The scheme of compromise has provided for disposal of such proceedings, in the event of full payment in terms of this compromise. He has contended that, the entire payment under sanctioned scheme was not made.

6. Relying upon (Alahabad Bank vs. Canara Bank and Another,  2000 (4) SCC 406) learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, the provision of the Act of 1993 overrides the Act of 1956. Relying upon (Pegasus Assets Reconstruction Private Limited vs. Haryana Concast Limited and Another,  2016 (4) SCC 47) he has contended that, the provisions of the Act of 2002 overrides the provisions of the Act of 1956. He has contended that, a proceeding in respect of the secured assets of the secured creditor is not maintainable in view of the provisions of the Act of 2002 when, a notice under Section 13 (2) was already issued.

7. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant has relied upon (Punjab and Sind Bank vs. Frontline Corporation Ltd.  2023 SCC OnLine SC 470) to contend that, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in respect of matters in which, a Debt Recovery Tribunal is empowered to determine.

8. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent has contended that, a scheme was sanctioned on January 14, 2009. He has referred to the scheme. He has contended that, the scheme was for payment of secured creditors. The appellant has claimed to be an assignee of one of the secured creditors conceived of in the scheme which was sanctioned. According to him, the respondent has paid all the secured creditors including the secured creditor through which, the appellant is claiming. All secured creditors excepting the secured creditors through which, the respondent is claiming, had issued No Objection Certificates.

9. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent has contended that the, predecessor-i