THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD W.P. No. 3590 of 2009 Oral order: (Per N.V. Ramana, J.) Petitioner No.1 is Director of petitioner No.2-company. Petitioner No.2 obtained loan from respondent No.1-Bank. The petitioners did not repay the loan amount as petitioner No.2 became sick. The matter was referred to BIFR. While the matter was pending before BIFR, respondent No.1-Bank filed O.A. No. 1553 of 1999 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, and obtained Recovery Certificate, for recovery of dues from the petitioners under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. When respondent No.1-Bank sought to enforce the said Recovery Certificate vide proceedings in R.P. No. 578 of 2003, the petitioners filed petition before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, to set aside the ex parte order, contending that the same was obtained without notice to them. But the Debts Recovery Tribunal, issued the impugned notice of demand to the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners filed the present writ petition to declare the action of respondent No.1 in proceeding with the R.P., and the consequential notice issued by respondent No.2 for recovery of the dues. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for respondent No.1-Bank. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that since petitioner No.1 has become sick and the matter is pending before BIFR, it is not proper for respondent No.1-Bank to execute the Recovery Certificate, issued by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment reported i n Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank[1], cannot be accepted. The Apex Court in the said judgment held that jurisdiction of Company Court cannot be invoked against the Debts Recovery Tribunal in view of superior purpose of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act. Therefore, pendency of the matter before the BIFR, is no ground for the Debts Recovery Tribunal not to proceed with the execution proceedings pursuant to the Recovery Certificate granted by it. In view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. ____________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J. Dated: 19th August, 2011 KSR [1] (2000) 4 SCC 406