Exclusive debt recovery jurisdiction prevails over company law, with sale proceeds subject first to workmen's dues.

A special debt recovery statute creates exclusive jurisdiction in the Tribunal for adjudication and in the Recovery Officer for execution, so company-law provisions on leave, stay, transfer, or winding up cannot interrupt that mechanism. Distribution of sale proceeds realised under the statute is also controlled by the limited priority scheme preserved for workmen under section 529A, not by the wider company-winding-up rules. A rival bank without an adjudicated claim cannot demand a share in the proceeds, and any balance after meeting workmen's dues must be dealt with by the Tribunal in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Debt Recovery Tribunal and Recovery Officer have exclusive jurisdiction for adjudication and execution under the recovery statute; (ii) whether the Companies Act provisions relating to leave, stay, transfer, and winding up control can override proceedings under the recovery statute and whether distribution of sale proceeds and priorities are governed by the Company Court or the Tribunal; (iii) whether a rival bank without an adjudicated decree can claim a share in the sale proceeds and what priority, if any, is available to secured creditors under the amended recovery provision; (iv) what relief should be granted in respect of the realised sale proceeds and workmen's dues.

Issue (i): Whether the Debt Recovery Tribunal and Recovery Officer have exclusive jurisdiction for adjudication and execution under the recovery statute.

Analysis: The recovery statute creates a special forum for expeditious adjudication of bank debts and a separate mechanism for recovery through a recovery certificate. The statutory bar on other forums, together with the overriding clause, shows that liability is to be decided by the Tribunal and execution of the certificate is to be carried out only by the Recovery Officer. The scheme does not contemplate parallel or shared jurisdiction at those stages.

Conclusion: Exclusive jurisdiction vests in the Tribunal for adjudication and in the Recovery Officer for execution.

Issue (ii): Whether the Companies Act provisions relating to leave, stay, transfer, and winding up control can override proceedings under the recovery statute and whether distribution of sale proceeds and priorities are governed by the Company Court or the Tribunal.

Analysis: The recovery statute, being a later and special enactment with an overriding clause, prevails to the extent of inconsistency. The provisions governing stay of proceedings, leave of court, transfer, and control in winding up cannot be used to stall proceedings before the Tribunal or Recovery Officer. The amended provision on distribution of sale proceeds confers authority on the Tribunal to distribute proceeds among secured creditors in accordance with the limited priority scheme under section 529A alone, and not under the wider company-winding-up provisions.

Conclusion: The Company Court cannot stay, transfer, or proceedings under the recovery statute, and priorities in respect of amounts realised thereunder are to be worked out by the Tribunal subject only to section 529A.

Issue (iii): Whether a rival bank without an adjudicated decree can claim a share in the sale proceeds and what priority, if any, is available to secured creditors under the amended recovery provision.

Analysis: A mere claim without adjudication does not attract distribution under the principles of section 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The amended recovery provision does not confer an unrestricted right on all secured creditors to share in sale proceeds. Its reference to secured creditors is controlled by section 529A, and the limited priority contemplated there applies only in the defined situation of a secured creditor who stands outside winding up and is affected by the workmen's pari passu charge. In the absence of those conditions, no rival secured creditor can demand a share in the proceeds realised by another creditor.

Conclusion: The rival bank could not claim a distribution share on the facts, and the limited statutory priority under section 529A was not available to it.

Issue (iv): What relief should be granted in respect of the realised sale proceeds and workmen's dues.

Analysis: Although the sale proceeds realised under the recovery statute could not be awarded to the rival bank, they also could not be released straightaway to the appellant because workmen's dues rank in priority. The proper course was to send the monies to the Tribunal so that notice could be issued and the existence and extent of workmen's dues ascertained before any balance is released to the decree-holding bank.

Conclusion: The sale proceeds were to be placed before the Tribunal first for satisfaction of workmen's dues, and only the remaining balance could be released in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded by setting aside the impugned company court order and confirming the primacy of the recovery forum, but the realised proceeds remained subject to the statutory priority of workmen's dues before any balance could go to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special recovery statute creates exclusive adjudicatory and machinery with an overriding clause, company-winding-up provisions cannot interrupt that mechanism, and distribution of sale proceeds realised thereunder is controlled only by the limited statutory priority expressly preserved in favour of workmen and qualifying secured creditors.

---