ORDER M. M. DAS, J. : This application has been filed by IDC of Orissa Limited, inter alia, making a prayer to issue a direction to the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack, not to disburse the sale proceeds of the assets of M/s. Snehadhara Industries Ltd. (in short ‘SIL’) without releasing the statutory dues which the said company i.e. SIL is liable to pay and for a further direction to the Mining Authorities restraining them form taking any coercive action and form causing hindrance in the mining operation which is being carried on by IDC, on account of non-payment of out¬standing statutory dues payable by SIL until disposal of the winding up proceeding. 2. A counter affidavit to the said misc. case has been filed by the IDBI, at whose instance, the Original Application for recovery of its dues form SIL was filed before the DRT, Cuttack. 3. Mr. R. K. Rath, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant in this misc. case contends that SIL was a Joint Venture Company of IDCOL in which IDCOL holds 11% shares worth Rs. 1.87 crores and also assigned raising rights in favour of SIL for operation of Lime Stone Mines located at Koraput District under an agreement. By virtue of the said agreement, SIL was to operate the mines and pay all Government dues like royal¬ty, dead rent etc.. Since the said company-SIL became sick, it has stopped mining operation with effect form 14.4.1999 without clearing Government dues amounting to Rs.69,01,781/- as on Decem¬ber, 2004, as demanded by the Deputy Director, Mines, Koraput. The said company is also liable to pay an amount of Rs.14,04,697/- to IDCOL towards agency fees. He further submits that in the meanwhile, at the instance of IDBI which is a secured creditor, a recovery proceeding was initiated before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack and pursuant to a certificate of recovery granted under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, the assets of SIL which were offered as collateral security were put to sale by the Recovery Officer, DRT, Cuttack and the sale has been made for Rs. 9.5 crores in favour of M/s. Tosali Cement (P) Ltd.. 9.5 crores in favour of M/s. Tosali Cement (P) Ltd.. The further case of the applicant is that since the mining lease was going to be lapsed for non-operation, the IDCOL started mining operation through M/s. Tosali Cement (P) Ltd. by virtue of the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal and on entering into an agreement dated 30.8.2004. It has been alleged in the application that due to outstanding dues of the SIL, the mining authorities are threaten¬ing to stop mining operation. 4. Mr. Rath vehemently argued that under Sections 529-A/530 of the Companies Act, all taxes, revenue and rent payable by SIL to the State Government shall have priority over all other dues and as such, are required to be satisfied first form the sale proceeds collected by the Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack. 5. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the IDBI relying on the counter affidavit filed by it to the misc. case petition, urged that the IDBI being a secured creditor standing outside the winding up proceeding and having obtained the certif¬icate of recovery form DRT, Cuttack, is entitled to the sale proceeds of the assets of SIL, which were hypothecated/mortgaged/charged in favour of IDBI. He further contended that the dues of the secured creditors and workmen are to get priority over the crown date i.e. Government dues. He also submitted that since the proceeding is pending before the DRT, this Court should not pass any interim order restraining the DRT form disbursing the amount obtained by sale of the assets of SIL pursuant to the recovery certificate granted in favour of IDBI. In support of the above contention, he relied upon the decision in the case of Allahabad Bank -v- Canara Bank, AIR 2000 SC 1535 . On the above premises, he contends that the interim order passed by this Court on 29.7.2007 should be vacated and this misc. case should be dismissed. 6. Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 530 of the Companies Act provides as follows : “S. 530. On the above premises, he contends that the interim order passed by this Court on 29.7.2007 should be vacated and this misc. case should be dismissed. 6. Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 530 of the Companies Act provides as follows : “S. 530. Preferential payments.-(1) In a winging up, (sub¬ject to the provisions of Section 529 A) there shall be paid in priority to all other debts- (a) all revenues, taxes, cesses and rates due form the company to the Central or a State Government or to a local au¬thority at the relevant date as defined in Clause (c) of Sub-section (8), and having become due and payable within the twelve months next before that date”. Section 529-A of the Companies Act is an obstinate provision which is as follows : “S. 529-A. Overriding preferential payments.-(1) Notwith¬standing anything contained in any other provision of this Act or any other law for the time being in force, in the winding up of a company- (a) workmen’s dues; and (b) debts due to secured creditors to the extent such debts rank under Clause (c) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Sec¬tion 529 pari passu with such dues shall be paid in priority to all other debts. (2) The debts payable under Clause (a) and Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) shall be paid in full, unless the assets are insufficient to meet them, in which case they shall abate in equal proportions.” 7. It is, therefore, clear form a bare reading of the above provisions that the payment of dues of the State Government or IDCOL is subject to the provisions of Section 529-A which is relating to the dues of the workmen and secured creditors. In the above premises, the contention of Mr. Rath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant that the dues of the Govern¬ment which SIL was liable to pay, should get a priority, is not acceptable. 8. In the case of Allahabad Bank (supra), the question before the Apex Court was with regard to the jurisdic¬tion of the Debts Recovery Tribunal vis-a-vis the Company Court. Rath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant that the dues of the Govern¬ment which SIL was liable to pay, should get a priority, is not acceptable. 8. In the case of Allahabad Bank (supra), the question before the Apex Court was with regard to the jurisdic¬tion of the Debts Recovery Tribunal vis-a-vis the Company Court. The Supreme Court held that even where a winding up petition is pending or an order for winding up has been passed against the Debtor Company, the adjudication of liability of the company to a Bank or a Financial Institution is within the exclusive jurisdic¬tion or the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the execution of a recov¬ery certificate is also within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Recovery Officer under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. It was further held that in such a case, the Company Court’s jurisdiction under Sections 442, 537 and 446 of the Companies Act was ousted. On the above conclu¬sion, the Supreme Court held that no leave of the Company Court was necessary for initiating the proceedings under the said Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. It was, however, further held in the said case that even the priorities amongst various credi¬tors, could be decided only by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in accordance with Section 19(19) of the said Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act read with Section 529-A of the Companies Act and in no other manner. On a reference to a larger Bench, the correctness of the decisions in the case of Allahabad Bank (supra) and in the case of International Coach Builders Ltd. -v- Karnatak State Financial Corporation, (2003) 10 SCC 482 was tested in the case of Rajasthan Financial Corporation -v- the Official Liquidator and another, 2005 (6) Supreme 709 . The Supreme Court clarified that there is no inconsistency be¬tween the said two decisions and concluded as follows : “18. The Supreme Court clarified that there is no inconsistency be¬tween the said two decisions and concluded as follows : “18. In the light of the discussion as above, we think it proper to sum up the legal position thus :- (i) A Debt Recovery Tribunal acting under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 would be entitled to order the sale and to sell the properties of the debtor, even if a company-in-liquidation, through its Recovery Officer but only after notice to the Official Liquidator or the liquidator appointed by the Company Court and after hearing him. (ii) A District Court entertaining an application under Section 31 of the SFC Act will have the power to order sale of the assets of a borrower company-in-liquidation, but only after notice to the Official Liquidator or the liquidator appointed by the Company Court and after hearing him. (iii) If a financial corporation acting under Section 29 of the SFC Act seeks to sell or otherwise transfer the assets of a debtor company-in-liquidation, the said power could be exercised by it only after obtaining the appropriate permission form the company Court and acting in terms of the directions issued by that Court as regards associating the Official Liquidator with the sale, the fixing of the upset price or the reserve price, confirmation of the sale, holding of the sale proceeds and the distribution thereof among the creditors in terms of Section 529A and Section 529 of the Companies Act. (iv) In a case where proceedings under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 or the SFC Act are not set in motion, the concerned creditor is to approach the company Court for appropriate directions regarding the realiza¬tion of its securities consistent with the relevant provisions of the Companies Act regarding distribution of the assets of the company-in-liquidation”. 9. In the case at hand, on receiving the opinion of the BIFR under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provision) Act, 1985, notice was issued to the company under liquidation. There¬after various parties have been allowed to intervene in the matter including the purchaser-M/s. Tosali Cement (P) Ltd.. However, no order has been passed for winding up of the company and no liquidator has been appointed till date. There¬after various parties have been allowed to intervene in the matter including the purchaser-M/s. Tosali Cement (P) Ltd.. However, no order has been passed for winding up of the company and no liquidator has been appointed till date. In the meanwhile, IDBI, standing outside the winding up proceeding, initiated recovery proceeding before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and after obtaining a certificate for recovery of the dues has taken steps for execution of the said certificate. Subsequent thereto the Recovery Officer has put the assets of the company which was offered as security for the loan advanced by the IDBI, to sale and M/s. Tosali Cement (P) Ltd. has purchased the same in an auction. The consideration money amounting to Rs. 9.5 crores is with the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack and pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 29.7.2005, the Debts Recov¬ery Tribunal, Cuttack was directed not to disburse any amount form the said sale price of Rs. 9.5 crores. 10. In view of the position of law as discussed above, the Debts Recovery Tribunal is to act in accordance with Section 19(19) of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Insti¬tutions Act, 1993 read with Section 529-A of the Companies Act by following the prescribed procedure as per the rules and if the rules framed under the Debts due to Banks and Financial Institu¬tions Act, 1993, do not provide for any such procedure, it is to act in accordance with the relevant rules under the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. It is only after satisfying the debts of the secured creditors and workmen in full if any further amount is available, the same can be paid towards the dues of the State Government or IDCOL under Section 530 of the Companies Act. 11. In view of the above, the applicant-IDC of Orissa Ltd. may lodge its claim before the Debts Recovery Tribunal/Recovery Officer, Cuttack which shall be adjudicated upon, as indicated above. The amount of Rs. 9.5 crores available with the DRT, Cuttack can only be disbursed only in the manner prescribed. 12. 11. In view of the above, the applicant-IDC of Orissa Ltd. may lodge its claim before the Debts Recovery Tribunal/Recovery Officer, Cuttack which shall be adjudicated upon, as indicated above. The amount of Rs. 9.5 crores available with the DRT, Cuttack can only be disbursed only in the manner prescribed. 12. With regard to the prayer for an order of restraint directing the mining authorities not to disburse or cause hin¬drance in the mining operation carried out by the applicant through M/s. Tosali Cement (P) Ltd., it is directed that the mining authorities shall not take any coercive measure, such as, stopping mining operation over the mines in question against the IDC of Orissa or its agent and if any claim of the said depart¬ment against the company under liquidation exists, it is open for the said authorities to take part in the proceeding for liquida¬tion and lodge their claim at the appropriate time. 13. With the above observations and directions, the misc. case is disposed of. Misc. Case disposed of.