ORDER : Tripathi, J. 1. The present application is filed for the relief to the effect that the applicant-bank be permitted to proceed against M/s Gujarat State Textile Corporation (in liquidation) for enforcement of the recovery certificate issued by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad, vide judgment and order dated 10.11.2000 in Original Application No. 7 of 1998 before the Recovery Officer attached to the Debt Recovery Application, Ahmedabad. 2. Today when the matter is called out, Mr. S.S. Panesar, learned advocate for the applicant-bank submitted that the matter is squarely covered by the decision in the case of Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank and another reported in (2000) 4 SCC 406 : 2000 ISJ (Banking) 392. Mr. Panesar invited the attention of this Court to the contents of para 50 of the said judgment, which reads as under :- "50. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that at the stage of adjudication under Section 17 and execution of the certificate under Section 25 etc. the provisions of the RDB Act, 1993 confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Tribunal and the Recovery Officer in respect of debts payable to banks and financial institutions and there can be no interference by the Company Court under Section 442 read with Section 537 or under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956. In respect of the monies realised under the RDB Act, the question of priorities among the banks and financial institutions and other creditors can be decided only by the Tribunal under RDB Act, and in accordance with Section 19(19) read with Section 529-A of the Companies Act, and in no other manner. The provisions of the RDB Act, 1993 are to the above extent inconsistent with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and the latter Act, has to yield to the provisions of the former. This position hold good during the pendency of the winding-up petition against the debtor Company and also after a winding-up order is passed. No leave of the Company Court is necessary for initiating or continuing the proceedings under the RDB Act, 1993. Points 3 and 3 are decided accordingly in favour of the appellant and against the respondents." 3. This position hold good during the pendency of the winding-up petition against the debtor Company and also after a winding-up order is passed. No leave of the Company Court is necessary for initiating or continuing the proceedings under the RDB Act, 1993. Points 3 and 3 are decided accordingly in favour of the appellant and against the respondents." 3. He submitted that in view of the aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court whereby it is held that the provisions of the RDB Act, to the extent are shown to be inconsistent with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, the latter Act, has to yield to the provisions of the former. Mr. Panesar has also submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in para 51 of the said judgment as under :- "51. We have already held that the adjudication, execution and distribution of the sale proceeds and working out priorities as between banking and financial institutions and other creditors of the defendant Company so far as the monies realised under the RDB Act, are concerned has to be done only by the Tribunal and not by the Company Court. The next question is as to the manner of distribution of these monies between the banks or financial institutions on the one hand and the other creditors, secured or unsecured of the company under winding up. This question depends upon the effect of Section 19(19) of the RDB Act, as introduced by Ordinance 1 of 2000." The official Liquidator has filed his report dated 24.4.2001. The official Liuqidator submitted a copy of Civil Misc. Application No. 18 of 2000 which is filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad. Mr. Panesar submitted that in the said application no stay is granted and filing of that application does not negative the judgment of the Apex Court whereby the Apex Court has held, "No leave of the Company Court is necessary for initiating or continuing the proceedings under the RDB Act, 1993." In that view of the matter, the present application is allowed. Allowed.