P. K. DEB, J. ( 1 ) THIS instant revisional application has been directed against the order dated June 2, 2006 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts recovery Tribunal-II, Kolkata in T. A. No. 03 of 2005, whereby the applicant had been granted liberty to proceed with the Securitisation Act of 2002 for the enforcement of its security interest against all the defendants. ( 2 ) IN moving the revisional application, Mr. D. Basak, learned Counsel, has submitted that in disposing of the application ex parts without serving notice upon the petitioner, the Tribunal flouted principle of natural justice. Erroneous assumption of jurisdiction by the Tribunal is, thus, liable to be set aside in revision. ( 3 ) CONTENDING that the ex parte order had been passed in haste, Mr. Basak has contended that in view of the provision contained in the proviso to section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions act, 1993, the Banks or the Financial Institutions are required to elect the forum for seeking remedy for realization of their dues Citing the case of m/s. Kalyani Sales Company and Anr. vs. Union of India and Anr. , reported in 2006 (1) Bank CLR 441, it is submitted that there cannot be two parallel proceedings under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 for realization of its due and enforcement of the security. As provided in proviso to section 19 of the recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal is to be withdrawn for prosecution of the Debtor under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Permission having been obtained to prosecute under the Securitisation and reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest act, 2002 without withdrawal of the application for recovery of the amount under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the aforesaid order is liable to be set aside. The case of Kripal Springs (India) Ltd. and Anr. vs. Andhra Bank and Ors. The case of Kripal Springs (India) Ltd. and Anr. vs. Andhra Bank and Ors. , reported in 2006 (130) Comp cas 691 (Orissa) has also been cited to vindicate the stand that with the amendment of the Securitisation Act, running of two parallel proceedings has been prohibited. The Banks or Financial Institutions are required to elect either of the two proceedings. Consequently, if the Bank intends to take action under the Securitisation Act, it is required to withdraw the application under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial institutions Act, 1993. ( 4 ) DEFENDING the order of the Tribunal, the learned Counsel has submitted that the subject-matter of the two proceedings under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and Securitisation and reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest act, 2002 being all together different, there was no question of withdrawal of the application pending before the Tribunal under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. It is submitted that claim case being T. A. No. 13 of 2005 was filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal for realization of its due, whereas permission was sought for to prosecute the opposite party under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 for enforcement of the security which was charged/mortgaged with the bank. It is submitted that the funds of the company being constantly diverted, the securities in the bank account were found grossly inadequate to meet the claim of the bank. Appreciating the fact that the applicant bank had right to realize its due, permission was accorded to proceed under the Securitisation and reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest act, 2002. ( 5 ) IT is contended that the petitioner came up with the revisional application following receipt of notice under section 13 (2) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest act, 2002. The petitioner has sought to challenge the propriety of the notice under section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Referring to the case of Mardia Chemicals Ltd. etc. vs. Union of India and Ors. The petitioner has sought to challenge the propriety of the notice under section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Referring to the case of Mardia Chemicals Ltd. etc. vs. Union of India and Ors. , reported in air 2004 SC 2371 , it is submitted that the borrower may not be entitled to challenge the reasons communicated or the likely action of the secured creditor at that point of time unless his right to approach the Debt Recovery tribunal as provided under section 17 of the Act matures on any measure having been taken under sub-section (4) of section 13 of the Act. ( 6 ) IN dealing with the scope and ambit of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the apex Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. etc. vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra)has made the following observation: "normal process of recovery of debts through Courts is lengthy and time taken is not suited for recovery of such dues. For financial assistance rendered to the industries by the financial institutions, financial liquidity is essential failing which there is a blockade of large sums of amounts creating circumstances which retard the economic progress followed by a large number of other consequential ill effects. Considering all these circumstances, the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial institutions Act was enacted in 1993 but as the figures show it also did not bring the desired results. In the present day global economy it may be difficult to stick to old and conventional methods of financing and recovery of dues. Hence, it cannot be said that a step taken towards securitisation of the debts and to evolve means for faster recovery of the non-Paying Assets (NPAs) was not called for or that it was superimposition of undesired law since one legislation was already operating in the field namely the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions act, 1993. " ( 7 ) PROVISO to section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and financial Institutions Act, 1993 has been incorporated to ensure speedy recovery of secured assets. " ( 7 ) PROVISO to section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and financial Institutions Act, 1993 has been incorporated to ensure speedy recovery of secured assets. It lays down: "bank or financial institutions may, with the permission of the Debts recovery Tribunal, on an application made by it, withdraw the application, whether made before or after the Enforcement of Security Interest and recovery of Debts Laws (Amendment) Act, 2004 for the purpose of taking action under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002), if no such action had been taken earlier under that Act. " ( 8 ) THE Securitisation Act was enacted to regulate securitisation and reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of security interest and matters connected thereto. The Act. makes provision for taking possession of secured assets of the borrower and, realize the secured debts. The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 provides suitable mechanism through which the dues to the banks and financial institutions can be realized in a quicker way. It prescribes several modes for recovery of debts, for instance, by attachment and sale of the movable and immovable property of the defendant, arrest and detention of the defendant in prison and appointment of receiver for management of movable and immovable properties of the defendant. ( 9 ) WITHDRAWAL of the application for prosecution under Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 is not a condition precedent to the launching of proceeding under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The proceeding under Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions act, 1993 is for realization of dues and loans, whereas the proceeding under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 may for enforcement of security interest only. ( 10 ) BEFORE concluding, I would like to dwell on another aspect. The order was issued by the Tribunal on appreciation of facts and circumstances. There is provision for preferring an appeal against the order of the Tribunal. As underscored by the Apex Court in Punjab National Bank vs. 0. C Krishnan and Ors. ( 10 ) BEFORE concluding, I would like to dwell on another aspect. The order was issued by the Tribunal on appreciation of facts and circumstances. There is provision for preferring an appeal against the order of the Tribunal. As underscored by the Apex Court in Punjab National Bank vs. 0. C Krishnan and Ors. , reported in 2001 (6) SCC 569 , when there is an alternative remedy available, judicial prudence demands that the Court refrains from exercising its jurisdiction under the said Constitutional provisions. The issue having been decided on appreciation of facts and circumstances, such order should not be interfered with in revision. ( 11 ) IN the result, the revisional application is dismissed. Revisional application dismissed.