THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD W.P. Nos. 12911 and 20957 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: (Per NVR,J) The sole petitioner in W.P. No. 12911 of 2011 is the proprietor of M/s. Prakash Iron World, which is petitioner No.1 in W.P. No. 20957 of 2011, while petitioner No.2 is the guarantor. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as arrayed in W.P. No. 12911 of 2011. Initially, the petitioner obtained term loan of Rs.5.40 lakhs from the respondent on 16.11.2006 by hypothecating property bearing premises No.31-32-81/2, Ramakrishna Arcade, Allipuram Ward, Visakhapatnam. Thereafter, for expanding business of petitioner No.1, he obtained cash credit loan of Rs.15.00 lakhs from the respondent on 21.12.2006 by executing equitable mortgage deed in respect of their business site in an extent of 624 Sq. yds., bearing Door No. 32-1-101, Market Road, Visakhapatnam. The worth of the said property, the petitioner states, is more than Rs.2.00 crores. The petitioner states that he paid the installments regularly, but subsequently defaulted in payment of the same. Therefore, the respondent issued notices dated 11.09.2009 and 15.09.2009 under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SARFAESI Act’) calling upon the petitioner to pay the amounts mentioned therein i.e. Rs.5,10,979/- and Rs.17,35,048/- respectively, within 60 days from the date of receipt of notices. The petitioner states that he submitted his explanation thereto, but the respondent, not satisfied with the same, issued possession notices dated 17.12.2009 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, taking symbolic possession of the mortgaged property. Thereafter, the petitioner states that the respondent initiated proceedings under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due To Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, by filing O.A. No. 211 of 2010 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, for recovery of the dues. The petitioner states that the respondent bank, having filed O.A. before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, for recovery of the dues, has initiated proceedings Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, and is taking steps to dispossess them, which is illegal and arbitrary. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the respondent-Bank. As can be seen from the stand taken by the respondent in the counter, the petitioner was irregular in paying the loan installments. Therefore, the respondent declared the loan accounts of the petitioner as non-performing asset. The petitioner, having received the demand notices under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, failed to discharge the liability. Therefore, the respondent was compelled to issue possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner is due and liable to pay to the respondent an amount of Rs.5,10,979/- and Rs.28,52,003/- respectively. Thereafter, the respondent initiated proceedings under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due To Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, for recovery of their dues from the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner that the respondent, having filed O.A. before the Debts Recovery Tribunal for recovery of their due, is not justified in initiating proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, cannot be accepted. This issue is no more res integra. The Apex Court in M/s. Transcore v. Union of India[1] having considered this issue, held as follows: The remedies under NPA Act and DRT Act are complementary to each other and, therefore, the doctrine of election has no application to the present case. There are three elements of election, namely, existence of two or more remedies; inconsistencies between such remedies and a choice of one of them. If any one of the three elements is not there, the doctrine will not apply. If in truth there is only one remedy, then the doctrine of election does not apply. In the instant case, the NPA Act, 2002 is an additional remedy to the DRT Act, 1993. Together they constitute one remedy and, therefore, the doctrine of election does not apply. Further the doctrine of election of remedies is applicable only when there are two or more co-existent remedies available to the litigants at the time of election which are repugnant and inconsistent. In any event, there is no repugnancy nor inconsistency between the two remedies, therefore, the doctrine of election has no application. From the above judgment of the Apex Court, it is clear that the respondent is entitled to proceed by availing one or more remedies for recovery of their dues from the defaulters. That being so, no exception can be taken to the impugned action initiated by the respondent for recovery of their dues from the petitioners. There is no merit in the writ petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed. No costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA ______________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD 21st December, 2011 IBL [1] AIR 2007 SC 712