JUDGMENT This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner submitting that notice (P-6) which has been issued on 4.1.2003 under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (which is hereinafter referred as an Act) could not have been issued due to pendency of a petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur for recovery of same amount. Shri Kishore Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has made a statement at bar that DRT has stayed the proceedings due to pendency of case before BIFR. He has further submitted that by virtue of section 37 of the Act, 2002. The provision of this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of the Recovery of Debts due to Bank and Financial Institution Act, 1993. He has placed reliance on section 36 that claim has to be made under sub section 4 of section 13 within a period of limitation, prescribed under Limitation Act, 1963. He has further placed reliance on apex Court decision A.P. State Financial Corporation v. M/s. GAR Re-Rolling Mills, [ AIR 1994 SC 2151 ] to contend that the Bank cannot simultaneously pursue two remedies at the same time. Thus, the proceedings which have been initiated under the Act of 2002, be quashed. In order to appreciate the submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to consider sections 13 (1), 13 (10) and section 37 of Act of 2002, which are quoted below: "13. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 69 or section 69A of the Transfer of property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), any security interest created in favour of any secured creditor may be enforced, without the intervention of the Court or tribunal, by such creditor in accordance with the provisions of this Act. 13. (10) Where dues of the secured creditor are not fully satisfied with the sale proceeds of the secured assets, the secured creditor may file an application in the form and manner as may be prescribed to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction or a competent Court, as the case may be, for recovery of the balance amount from the borrower. 37. 37. The provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), The Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (42 of 1956), The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (15 of 1992), The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993) or any other law for the time being in force. Under section 13 (1) of Act, power has been given notwithstanding anything contained in section 69 or section 69A of the Transfer of Property Act. 1882 (4 of 1882), and security interest created in favour of any secured creditor may be enforced, without the intervention of the Coul1 or Tribunal, by such creditor in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Provision is aimed at recovery of amount without intervention of Court or Tribunal. It is clear that the provision of the Act of 2002 or the rules made thereunder shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of The Recovery of Debts due to Bank and Financial Institution 1993 as provided under section 37 of the Act of 2002. It is further provided in sub-section (10) of section 13 of the Act of 2002, where dues of the secured creditor are not fully satisfied with the sale proceeds of the secured assets, the secured creditor may file an application in the form and manner as may be prescribed to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction or a competent Court, as the case may be, for recovery of the balance amount from the borrower. What appears in section 37 read with section 13 (10) of the Act, 2002 that recourse to the proceedings under DRT Act is not barred even after recourse to proceeding under Act of 2002 and the proceedings under Act of 2002 are not in derogation of the Recovery of Debts due to Bank and Financial Institution. The decision of apex Court in A.P. State Financial Corporation v. M/s. GAR Re-Rolling Mills (supra), which has been relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to the proceedings under sections 29 and 31 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 that does not deal with the scope of Act, 2002, which has been clarified in section 37 of the Act of 2002. Thus, in my opinion, it cannot be said that the proceedings which have been initiated under the Act of 2002 are without jurisdiction. As the proceedings before DRT have been stayed is not in dispute only the proceeding under the Act of 2002 are going on. In case full recovery is not made under the Act of 2002, rest of recovery can be made under pending application in Debt Recovery Tribunal. I do not find any ground to make interference in this writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed.