Radhakrishnan, J.

Whether Bank can call in aid the provisions of Section 13 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short "Securitization' Act") against a borrower at aimed when the question of liability of the borrowed to the Bank and the question relating to the, correct-amount payable', are pending consideration before the civil court between the, parties, is the question that has been posed in these cases.

2. Writ petitioner was served with notice dated, 10-2-2004 by, the Punjab National Bank under section 13 (4) of the Securitization Act calling upon him to pay the amount of Rs.6,17,058 towards the outstanding amount under the loan availed of by him in respect of M/s M.S. Oils and Rs.7,11,708, towards the outstanding amount under the loan availed of by him in respect of M/s S.B. Bricks, within a period of sixty days firm the date of receipt of the notice; failing which it was informed that the secured assets would be proceeded with for realization of the amounts due to the Bank.

3. Appellant - writ petitioner as the proprietor of M/s S.B. Bricks had availed cash credit facility of Rs.3,90,000 from the erstwhile Nedungadi Bank which was later amalgamated with Punjab National Bank on 1-2-2003. Appellant had filed O.S.No.572 of 2002 before the Munsiffs Court, Kollam for settlement of accounts contending that he is liable to pay Rs.76,631. Bank has filed O.S.No.45 of 2003 before the Sub Court, Kollam for recovery of the amount of Rs.5,08,882 with interest. There was an order of attachment in O.S.No.45 of 2003. Both the suits are pending. Appellant, who is the proprietor of M/s. Oils has also availed of loan of Rs.5,00,000 from the erstwhile Nedungadi Bank for settlement of accounts and for refund of Rs.32,343. Nedungadi Bank had also filed suit O.S.No.47 of 2003 before the Sub Court, Kollam for recovery of Rs.5,72,530 with future interest.

4. Senior Counsel Sri T.P. Kelu Nambiar appearing for the appellant submitted that since suits have already been instituted by the Bank and also by the appellant provisions of Section 13 (2) cannot be imported. Learned counsel made considerable stress on the words "without the intervention of the Court or Tribunal'. Counsel submitted that since the matter is already seized before the civil courts properties are custodia legis and the Bank is not justified in invoking the provisions of the Securitization Act. Counsel submitted that though such a contention was urged before the learned Single Judge the same was not adverted to.

5. Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank Sri K.P. Sudheer took us through the various provisions of the Securitization Act and submitted that the suits pending before the civil court is not a bar in invoking the provisions of Section 13 of the Securitization Act. Placing reliance 'on Section 37 of the Securitization Act, counsel submitted that the provisions of the Act shall have the effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having the effect by virtue of any such law. Counsel also referred to Section 34, which states that no civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a Debt Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act or under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. Counsel also made reference to the decision of the apex court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India 2004 (4) SCC 311.

6. The scope and ambit of the Securitization. Act has been elaborately considered by the apex court in the above decision and held that in view of Section 13 (1) of the Act the creditor is empowered to enforce the s