The present petition is filed by UCO Bank being aggrieved by an order passed by the Recovery Officer, DRT Ahmedabad in Recovery Proceedings (Execution Petition) No.74 of 2007. A copy of the order is produced as Annexure A to the petition at page 19. The learned advocate Mr. Rana for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the petitioner bank has initiated the proceedings for recovery by issuing notice under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SARFASI Act' for short) on 30.4.2004 Thereafter the action under Section 13 (4) of the said Act was taken on 13.1.2005 and thereafter auction notice was issued on 26.7.2005. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that auction notice was issued on 26.7.2005 but inadvertently the same could not be annexed with the petition. He tendered a copy of the same which is taken on record.

The learned advocate for the petitioner also invited attention of this Court to the fact that objections were filed by Bank of Baroda on 27.1.2005, a copy of which is produced along with an affidavit at page 47 of the petition. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the said objections were to the advertisement and the objections were replied by the petitioner bank through learned advocate on 1.4.2005. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that if at all Bank of Baroda wanted to take any action in connection with that matter, it ought to have filed an appeal under section 17 (1) of the SARFASI Act. He submitted that as Bank of Baroda did not do that it has lost all its rights and proceedings initiated by Bank of Baroda under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'RDDB Act' for short) are misconceived more particularly in light of section 35 of the SARFASI Act which gives an over righting effect to the provisions of that Act. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that therefore the order passed by the Recovery Officer is required to be quashed and set aside. He submitted that the petitioner bank has become the holder of the crystallized rights and therefore nothing further was required to be done at the hands of the petitioner.

As against this, Mr. Samal, the learned advocate for the respondent Bank of Baroda, submitted that the submission made by the learned advocate for the petitioner bank that Section 35 of the SARFASI Act giving over-riding effect over other laws is misconceived. He submitted that what is provided in Section 35 of the SARFASI Act is only that the provisions of this Act shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law. He submitted that if the submission of the learned advocate for the petitioner is accepted then all other laws stand rendered non-est. He submitted that, that will lead to a situation wherein no other law would be required to be continued on the statute book (emphasis supplied)..

The learned advocate for the respondent submitted that in fact what is required to be done is, the provisions of Section 37 of the SARFASI Act are required to be taken into consideration which says that the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the Companies Act, 1956 ............the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 or any other law for the time being in force .

The learned advocate for the respondent submitted that the order passed by the Recovery officer is an order under the provisions of the RDDB Act and there is a specific prevision in that Act itself for appeal against the order passed by the recovery officer to the Tribunal i.e., Section 30 of the RDDB Act. He submitted that the remedy for the petitioner is to file an appeal before t