JUDGMENT Shyamal Kumar Sen, J (oral). : This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, wherein the learned Single Judge declined to grant leave to the appellant to file application before Self Recovery Tribunal rectifying of its claim against company in liquidation. Short facts involved, inter alia in this appeal is that an application was filed under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, read with rules 6 & 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, for leave to file application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal for recovery of its claim against the company (in liquidation). The Bank being the mortgagee, is entitled to move an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal only and as such prayed for leave. In support of his contention that such application can only be filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate for the appellant, has referred to sections 17, 18, 31 & 34 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993. Mr. Mukherjee has also relied upon the following decisions:- i) Industrial Credit & Investment Corporation of India Ltd. vs. Srinivas Agencies & Ors., reported in (1996) 4 SCC 165 ; ii) In re. Bihar Solex Pvt. Ltd., reported in 96 CC 40; and iii) The Industrial Credit & Investment Corporation of India Ltd. vs. Vanjinad Leathers Ltd., reported in AIR 1997 Ker 273 . 2. It is the contention of Mr. Mukherjee that in terms of the aforesaid sections of the said Act, it is only the Tribunal before which application for recovery of debts should be filed in respect of the debts due and payable to Banks, if the same is above Rs. 10,00, 000/-. Mr. Mukherjee has further submitted that all the aforesaid decisions cited by him, lay down the principle that for recovery of the debt due to the Bank an application can only be filed before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the said Act. 3. Mr. Prasad, learned Advocate for the Official Liquidator, has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Central Bank of India vs. M/s Elmot Engineering Company & Ors., reported in (1994) 4 SCC 159 . Mr Prasad has also relied upon a decision in the case of UCO Bank vs. Concast Products Ltd. (now in liqn.), reported in 1996 (1) CLJ 380 . 4. Mr Prasad has also relied upon a decision in the case of UCO Bank vs. Concast Products Ltd. (now in liqn.), reported in 1996 (1) CLJ 380 . 4. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and also the decisions cited from the Bar. In our view, for enforcement of the debt due and payable to Bank the Debts Recovery Tribunal is the only appropriate authority and judicial forum. In this connection, the following provisions of sections 17, 18, 31 & 34 of the said Act may be taken note of, which are as follows:- "17. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of Tribunals.- (1) A Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, the jurisdiction, powers and authority to entertain and decide applications from the banks and financial institutions for recovery of debts due to such banks and financial institutions. (2) An Appellate Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, the jurisdiction, powers and authority to entertain appeals against any order made, or deemed to have been made, by a Tribunal under this Act. 18. Bar of jurisdiction.- On and from the appointed day, no court or other authority shall have, or be entitled to exercise, any jurisdiction, powers or authority (except the Supreme Court, and a High Court exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution) in relation to the matters specified in section 17. … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … 31. Transfer of pending cases.- (1) Every suit or other proceeding pending before any court immediately before the date of establishment of a Tribunal under this Act, being a suit or proceeding the cause of action whereon it is based is such that it would have been, if it had arisen after such establishment, within the jurisdiction of such Tribunal, shall stand transferred on that date to such Tribunal: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any appeal pending as aforesaid before any court. (2) Where any suit or other proceeding stands transferred from any court to a Tribunal under sub-section (1),- (a) the court shall, as soon as may be after such transfer, forward the records of such suit or other proceeding to the Tribunal; and (b) the Tribunal may, on receipt of such records, proceed to deal with such suit or other proceeding, so far as may be, in the same manner as in the case of an application made under section 19 from the stage which was reached before such transfer or from any earlier stage or de novo as the Tribunal may deem fit. … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … 34. Act to have overriding effect.- (1) Save as provided under sub-section (2), the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. (2) The provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 (15 of 1948), the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (63 of 1951), the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), the Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India Act, 1984 (62 of 1984) and the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of 1986)." On perusal of the provisions of the said Act as set out hereinabove, the exclusive jurisdiction is conferred upon the Debts Recovery Tribunal, so far as recovery of debts of the Bank is concerned, if the same exceeds Rs. 10,00,000/-. It is well settled that where two statutes contain similar non obstante clauses, it is the later which is to prevail over the earlier, for, the Legislature is presumed to be aware of the fact that the statute already in force contains a non obstante clause but still incorporates such non obstante clause in order to obliterate the effect of the non obstante clause contained in the former statute. In the instant case, there is no doubt that the said Act, viz., Recovery of Debts due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993, being the subsequent legislation, the same will prevail over the earlier statute. In the instant case, there is no doubt that the said Act, viz., Recovery of Debts due to Banks & Financial Institutions Act, 1993, being the subsequent legislation, the same will prevail over the earlier statute. In this connection, the judgment and decision in reo Bihar Solex Pvt. Ltd. (supra) may be taken note of. The aforesaid principle also finds support from the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of The Industrial Credit & Investment Corporation of India Ltd. vs. Vanjinad Leathers Ltd. (supra). 5. The decision cited by Mr Prasad, viz., Central Bank of India vs. M/s. Elmot Engineering Company & Ors. (supra), is not a decision in respect of the claim of the Bank and the question of jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal is not involved therein. That apart, in our view, the principles laid down therein cannot apply to the facts of the instant case. In support of this contention, Mr. Prasad has also relied upon the decision in the case of UCO Bank vs. Concast Products Ltd. (supra). The said decision, in our view, is distinguishable in view of the fact that in the said case the Bank being a mortgagee, filed the application for transfer, which was not really opposed by the Official Liquidator. In the instant case, the mortgagee-Bank wishes to file its proceeding before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and as such the principles laid down therein cannot have any application to the facts of the instant case. 6. Considering all aspect of the matter, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was not correct in declining to grant leave to the appellant Bank to file the application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal for recovery of its claim against the company (in liquidation) and such leave should have been granted, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Accordingly, leave is granted to the appellant-Bank to file the application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal for recovery of its claim against the company (in liqn.) and in the event the Official Liquidator makes an application for transfer of the said proceeding, if he is so advised, the same will be considered by the learned Company Judge in accordance with law. 8. The appeal is therefore, allowed and the same is thus disposed of, after treating the same as on day's list. 9. 8. The appeal is therefore, allowed and the same is thus disposed of, after treating the same as on day's list. 9. Filing of Paper Book in the appeal is dispensed with. All undertakings given by the appellant in that behalf stand discharged. 10. In view of the order passed above in the appeal itself, no order is required to be passed in the application. The application is thus disposed of, after treating the same as Application (Adjd.) on day's list. 11. Let xerox certified copy of this judgment be made available to the parties expeditiously, if applied for, in accordance with the Rules of this Court. Prodyot Kumar Sen, J. : I agree. Appeal allowed and the same is disposed of.