Parallel recovery remedies under the SARFAESI Act may proceed without prior Tribunal permission, as the withdrawal proviso is limited.

Insertion of the proviso to section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 does not make Debts Recovery Tribunal permission a condition precedent for invoking the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The proviso is limited to permitting withdrawal of a pending recovery application, with the Tribunal empowered only to grant or refuse that withdrawal. Section 37 of the Securitisation Act confirms that securitisation is an additional remedy, not a substitute excluded by the pending recovery proceedings. The parallel operation of both statutes means pendency before the Tribunal does not bar action under section 13 of the Securitisation Act.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after insertion of the proviso to section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, permission of the Debts Recovery Tribunal is a prerequisite for a bank or financial institution to invoke the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

Analysis: Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 is a procedural provision dealing with the filing and withdrawal of applications before the Tribunal. The proviso inserted by the amendment only enables a bank or financial institution, with the Tribunal's permission, to withdraw its pending application for the purpose of proceeding under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, if no such action had earlier been taken. The Tribunal is given only the power to grant or refuse permission to withdraw, and no power to restrain invocation of the securitisation remedy. Section 37 of the Securitisation Act also makes clear that the remedy under that Act is in addition to, and not in derogation of, the recovery remedy under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. Accordingly, pendency of the recovery application does not bar action under section 13 of the Securitisation Act, and the amendment does not create a mandatory precondition of prior Tribunal permission.

Conclusion: Permission of the Debts Recovery Tribunal is not required before invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

Final Conclusion: The securitisation remedy and the recovery proceedings are parallel statutory remedies, and the bank's action under the Securitisation Act was held valid, resulting in dismissal of the writ appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a later statute provides an additional enforcement remedy and the only express control conferred on the Tribunal is over withdrawal of the pending recovery application, prior permission from the Tribunal cannot be read as a condition precedent to invoking the independent statutory remedy.

---