Simultaneous recovery remedies under SARFAESI and the debt recovery law are maintainable; writ challenge failed.

Proceedings under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 may continue alongside measures under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 because the two statutes provide cumulative and complementary remedies. The doctrine of election does not apply, as the enactments operate in different fields and the enforcement mechanism under the security interest law does not bar adjudicatory recovery proceedings. Sections 35 and 37 preserve the security interest law's overriding effect only to the extent of inconsistency and confirm that it operates in addition to other laws. The writ challenge to the recovery action was therefore not maintainable and was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether proceedings under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 can be continued simultaneously with measures taken under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, and whether the writ petition challenging the recovery action was maintainable.

Analysis: The legal position on the simultaneous use of remedies under the two enactments is settled. The provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 are complementary, and the doctrine of election does not apply because the statutes operate in different fields. The enforcement mechanism under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 does not bar adjudicatory proceedings under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. Section 35 gives overriding effect to the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 only to the extent of inconsistency, while Section 37 makes clear that the Act operates in addition to, and not in derogation of, other laws including the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. The challenge to the recovery proceedings was therefore not well founded, and the existence of statutory remedies also weighed against the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The continuation of proceedings under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 along with proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was held to be permissible, and the writ petition was rejected as lacking merit.

Ratio Decidendi: The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 provide cumulative and complementary remedies, so simultaneous proceedings are maintainable and the doctrine of election has no application.

---