BHAGWATI PRASAD, J. These two appeals which are being decided by this common judgment, are filed against the decision in Company Application No. 1 of 2009 in Company Application No. 648 of 2008 rendered by learned Company Judge by oral judgment dated 7-8-2009, 26-8-2009, 28-8-2009 & 31-8-2009. One appeal i.e. Appeal No. 67 of 2009 has been filed by Mafatlal Denim Limited hich was the applicant before the Company Judge and another Appeal i.e. Appeal No. 109 of 2009 has been filed by SICOM Limited which was original respondent No. 1 before .learned Company Judge. The question which was raised before learned Single Judge was where there is an action under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "S.F.C. Act") and under Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "R.D.B. Act"), can the Company Court exercise powers under Sec. 391(6) of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to "Act of 1956") pending application under Sec. 391 of the Act of 1956 and stay the proceedings initiated under R. D. B. Act and S. F. C. Act pending before the respective judicial forums?

2. The applicant before learned Single Judge Mafatlal Denin Limited availed various loans from different Banks and Financial Institutions which includes AXIS Bank, EXIM Bank and SICOM Limited. The outstanding dues of all these three institutions payable by the appellant as on 4-2-2009, the date on which the meeting of the secured creditors was held pursuant to the orders of learned Company Judge, were as follows

(a) SICOM Limited Rs. 3,057 lakh

(b) AXIS Bank Ltd. Rs. 6,922 lakh

(c) EXIM Bank Rs. 2,626 lakh

3. The appellant-Company having defaulted in making the payment to the Banks and Financial Institutions it felt that the loans are required to be restructured. For that purpose, a Scheme was required to be framed under Sec. 391 of the Act of 1956. For that matter an application was contemplated before the Company Court. While the Company Court was being considered to be moved by Company for getting the Scheme sanctioned by the Company Court under Sec. 391 of the Act of 1956, SICOM Limited issued a demand notice dated 18-7-2008 calling upon the appellant-Company to pay the amounts due to it amounting to Rs. 1,61,74,750/- on or before 25-7 - 2008 and vide this notice this was also informed to the appellant Company that failing to make the payment, it would be compelled to take action which may be available in law including action under Sec. 29 of the S.F.C. Act.

4. The Company Court vide order dated 26-12-2008 ordered that a meeting of the secured creditors be held on 4-2-2009 for considering the proposed Scheme. The appellant-Company also preferred an application on 31-12-2008 under Sec. 391(6) of the Act of 1956. This application was preferred apprehending that though the meeting as per the orders of the Company Court passed on 26-12-2008 will be held, SICOM Limited may take action in pursuance of its notice dated 18-7-2008 against the mortgaged and hypothecated assets. On this application, learned Company Judge issued notice and made it returnable on 19-1-2009. On 2-1-2009 learned Company Judge passed order that SICOM Limited, one of the secured creditors of the appellant-Company, is restrained from taking possession of any property or assets of the appellant Company in exercise of authority under Sec. 29 of the S.F.C. Act. A further condition was put on the appellant-Company that it shall not create any interest or encumbrance or charge, in any manner, over the assets and property until finalization of the Scheme under Sec. 391 of the Act of 1956. It was further ordered that status quo in relation to all assets and property shall be maintained.

5. The meeting of the secured creditors of the appellant-Company is claimed to have been held on 4-2-2009 pursuant to the orders of learned Company Judge dated 26-12-2008. In the said meeting, the Scheme proposing reconstruction of d