Judgment :- (Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent Bank dated 29.07.2005 issued under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security interest Act 2002 read with Proviso Section 19 (10) of the DRT Act as amended from 11.11.2004 and quash the same.) The banker has given credit to the sole proprietress of M/s.Victory Cashews and since there is a default in payment of the loan, proceedings were initiated by the bank, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai. The original application is pending before the Tribunal in O.A.No.232 of 2001. 2. In the meanwhile, the Banker, who is the respondent herein, issued a notice under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security interest Act 2002, popularly known as NPA Act read with Proviso Section 19 (10) of the DRT Act. 3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. Heard Mr.V.Manisekaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.Rajasekaran, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 4. On behalf of the petitioner, a Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court is cited, wherein it is held that during the pendency of an application filed by the bank before the DRT, the banker has no right to take action under the Securitisation Act and that was discussed in detail in the Judgment. Relying on the said Judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner forcefully contended that since the Original Application is pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai, the respondent bank cannot invoke the provisions of NPA Act. 5. While so, Mr.V.Rajasekaran, learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court in Appeal (Civil) No.3228 of 2006 delivered on 29.11.2006. Civil Appeal Nos.1374/06, 2841/06, 3225/06, 3226/06 and 908/06 were also disposed of through the same. Honourable Mr.Justice Kapadia of Apex Court was pleased to observe in the Judgment that withdrawal of the Original Application pending before the DRT under the DRT Act is not a pre-condition for taking recourse to NPA Act. It is for the bank or financial institution to exercise its discretion as to cases in which it may apply for leave and in cases where they may not apply for leave to withdraw. It is for the bank or financial institution to exercise its discretion as to cases in which it may apply for leave and in cases where they may not apply for leave to withdraw. It is further observed that we do not wish to spell out those circumstances because the first proviso to Section 19(1) is an enabling provision which provision may deal with myriad circumstances which we do not wish to spell out herein. 6. Thus it is clear that through the latest pronouncement, the Apex Court has clarified that even if Original Application is pending before DRT, there is no bar to initiate action under NPA Act by the banker and withdrawal of such application pending before DRT is not a pre-condition for taking recourse to NPA Act and it is for the banker to choose. The counsel while highlighting the case facts and the decision stated that after invoking the provisions of NPA Act and if the debt is not realised to the full satisfaction, the banker may reduce the suit amount after giving credit to the amount recovered under the NPA Act and this Court cannot give a direction to the bank to withdraw either the Original Application or to quash the notice issued under NPA Act. 7. In view of the latest Judgment of the Supreme Court, the writ petition is disposed of as there are no merits in the writ petition. However the petitioner is at liberty to raise his plea before the Tribunal or before the authorities concerned and it is for them to decide on the merits strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner represents that he intend to move the DRT for necessary orders and four weeks time may be granted to him. Considering the same, time is granted till 31.12.2006.