IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12007 of 2005 Between: P.Shankuntala W/o.Late Mr.Sampangi Raj H.No.1-7-500/7 Bakaram, Zamistanpur Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Prudential Cooperative Bank Limited Rep. by its Assist General Manager, 8-1-381, Rastrapathi Road, Secunderabad. 2 The Sale Officer The Prudential Coop Bank Limited R.P.Road, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:NONE APPEARED Counsel for the Respondents: MR.S.ASHOK ANAND KUMAR The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of mandamus to declare that respondent No.1 cannot avail the remedies both under the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the 1964 Act’) and the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the 2002 Act’) simultaneously. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. Heard Sri S.Ashok Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. The petitioner is a guarantor in respect of the loan availed by one Mr.C.M.Satyanarayana, stated to be her nephew. She mortgaged her property bearing No.1-7-500/7, Bakaram, Zamistanpur, Hyderabad. Respondent No.1 issued notice, dated 08.05.2003 under Section 13(2) of the 2002 Act on the petitioner. The said notice is questioned on the ground that respondent No.1 already initiated arbitration proceedings under the 1964 Act, of which, she has no knowledge. At the hearing, Sri S.Ashok Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents placed before this Court order, dated 28.10.2003 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Tribunal under Section 37(1)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act, 1995 wherein the said Tribunal granted an award – decree – certiﬁcate for execution under Section 36 of the said Act against four persons including the petitioner herein. As regards the plea of the petitioner that respondent No.1 cannot avail two parallel remedies under the 1964 Act and the 2002 Act, this issue is no longer res integra. In Transcore v. Union of India [1], the Supreme Court held that the 2002 Act provides an additional remedy other than the remedy under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and that the doctrine of election of remedies is applicable only when there are two or more co-existent remedies available to the petitioner at the time of elections, which are repugnant and inconsistent with each other. Applying the same analogy, I am of the view that the 2002 Act being an Act, which provides an additional remedy, the respondents are not precluded from exercising their powers under the said Act despite their availing a remedy under the 1964 Act. On the above premises, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, interim order, dated 09.06.2005 is vacated and WPMP.No.15286 of 2005 is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 27th AUGUST, 2008. kvni [1] 2007 (3) SCJ 201