Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. This writ petition has been preferred by the Bank of Rajasthan Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) against the order dated 14. 2007, passed by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as DRAT) in M.A. No. 191 of 2006 with further prayer to direct Debt Recovery Tribunal-II (hereinafter referred to as DRT-II Chennai, to proceed with O.A. No. 189 of 2003 as against the borrower-respondent Shobhagaya Steels Ltd. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent Shobhagaya Steels Ltd., is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and is engaged in the manufacture of steel ingots, tor steel and CTD bars, The Bank had granted credit facility to the said respondent during 1994, who created equitable mortgage of the immovable property situated at Plot Nos.B-58, B-74 and B-76, SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Guimmidipoondi. On the request made by the respondent-company, the facility granted was periodically enhanced by the Bank and the respondent confirmed that the equitable mortgage of the property will be continued by the Bank to secure the liabilities of the company. The mortgage was duly registered with the Registrar of Companies. Since the respondents account was overdue and was irregular, the bank called upon the respondent to regularise the account. The company having failed to take steps far regularization of the account the bank recalled the entire credit facility by notice dated 211. 2001 and called upon the respondent-company to deposit a sum of Rs.890,89 lakhs in response to which the company made payment of Rs.6,50,000/-only in three instalments, the last of which was received on 13. 2002. Later on, by letter dated 23. 2002 of the Registrar, Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as BIFR), the petitioner-Bank was informed that the respondent-company was registered with the BIFR vide registration No. 134 of 2002. But, in the meantime, as the respondent-companys account has been classified as non-performing asset (NPA), the Bank initiated action against the respondents property under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (hereinafter referred to as the SARFAESI Act). An application, O.A.No.189 of 2003 was filed before the DRT-II, Chennai, under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act (hereinafter referred to as the RDDB & Fl Act against the respondent and the guarantors for recovery of Rs.10,68,77,8512. 3. An application, O.A.No.189 of 2003 was filed before the DRT-II, Chennai, under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act (hereinafter referred to as the RDDB & Fl Act against the respondent and the guarantors for recovery of Rs.10,68,77,8512. 3. After complying with the statutory requirements prescribed under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, the Bank proceeded and took physical possession of the property situated at Plot Nos. B-58, B-74 and B-76 at SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Gummidipoondi, under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. Peaceful possession was handed over on 212. 2003 but the respondent filed I.A.No.546 of 2005 seeking for dismissal of O.A. No.189 of 2003 on the ground that the said application was in contravention of Section 22(1) of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, (hereinafter referred to as SICA, 1385). The Bank filed a counter affidavit contending that the reference pending before BIFR deemed to have been abated under 3rd proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 15 of SICA, 1985, in view of the fact that the Bank is the exclusive creditor having taken possession of the property under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act. Other plea were also taken. However, the DRT-II, after hearing the parties, by way of its order dated I3. 2006, disposed of the interlocutory application and stayed the proceedings in O.A. No.189 of 2003 against the respondent-company. Faced with the aforesaid situation, the Bank filed M.A.No.191 of 2006 before the DRAT. During the pendency of the appeal, the Bank also published auction notice in the local newspapers setting out the terms and conditions of the sale of the respondents property of which the Bank had taken possession under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The respondent-company filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 40069 of 2006 challenging the simultaneous proceeding under the SARFAESI Act and the RDDB & FT Act and sought for stay of the proceeding. Since similar matter was pending before the Supreme Court, this Court initially granted an order of exparte interim stay on 16. 2006. However, the writ petition preferred by the respondent-company was finally dismissed. The respondent-company, thereafter, filed S.A. No.132 of 2007 before the DRT-II, Chennai, challenging the proceeding under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act on the ground that the upset price fixed far the sale of the property was improper. 2006. However, the writ petition preferred by the respondent-company was finally dismissed. The respondent-company, thereafter, filed S.A. No.132 of 2007 before the DRT-II, Chennai, challenging the proceeding under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act on the ground that the upset price fixed far the sale of the property was improper. The DRT-II granted an interim stay and directed the bank to file its counter. So far as the appeal preferred by the Bank is concerned, the DRAT, by impugned order dated 14. 2007 dismissed M.A.No.191 of 2006 on the ground that the 3rd proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 15 of SICA, 1985, was introduced by Section 41 of SARFAESI Act. And as such the benefit of amendment will enure only to the proceeding under the SARFAESI Act and cannot be relied on for the proceeding under the RDDB & FT Act. The Appellate Tribunal stayed the entire proceeding pending before the DRT-II, which gave rise to the present writ petition. 4. It is not in dispute that the Bank issued proper notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on the borrower and taken possession of the secured assets under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. 5. The questions which are required to be determined in the present case are: - a) Whether there will be any effect of 3rd proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 15 of SICA, I985 on an application pending under the RDDB & FT Act; and b) Whether the respondent-company is entitled to derive any advantage of Section 22 of SICA, I985, and for that the original application before DRT cannot proceed without prior permission of BIFR. 6. The relevant sub-section (I) of Section 15 of SICA, 1985, particularly, 3rd proviso, reads as follows: - "15. 6. The relevant sub-section (I) of Section 15 of SICA, 1985, particularly, 3rd proviso, reads as follows: - "15. Reference to Board (1) When an industrial company has become a sick industrial company, the Board of Directors of the company, shall, within sixty days from the date of finalisation of the duly audited accounts of the company for the financial year as at the end of which the company has become a sick industrial company, make a reference to the Board for determination of the measures which shall he adopted with respect to the company:- Provided also that on or after the commencement of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, where a reference is pending before the Board for industrial and Financial Reconstruction, such reference shall abate if the secured creditors, representing not less than three-fourth in value of the amount outstanding against financial assistance disbursed to the borrower of such secured creditors, have taken any measures to recover their secured debt under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of that Act." 7. In the present case, as pointed out by the Bank, who is the secured creditor. has already taken possession of the secured assets under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. At the instance of the Bank, a reference, being case No. 134 of 2002 is pending before the BIER. It is not the case of the respondent that the secured creditor-Bank does not represent less than three-fourth in the value of the, amount out-standing against the financial assistance disbursed to the borrower. Thus, in view of 3rd proviso to sub-section (I) of Section 15 of SICA, 1985, such reference shall stand abated, secured creditor having already taken measures to recover the secured debt under subsection (4) to Section 13 of SARFAESI Act. 8. The meaning of "abate" as shown in P. RAMANATHA AIYARS ADVANCED LAW LEXICON 3rd Edn. 2005, (published by Wadhwa Publications) means.- "Abate.- To diminish or take away. To put an end to; to curtail (Order 12, Rule 50, CPC) to come to naught. (Section 14, Sick Textile Undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Act (72 of 1972)." In AGRAWALS LEGAL DICTIONARY, the meaning of "abate" is shown as - “Abate-1. To put an end to, to curtail (Order 22 RL, CPC); 2. To put an end to; to curtail (Order 12, Rule 50, CPC) to come to naught. (Section 14, Sick Textile Undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Act (72 of 1972)." In AGRAWALS LEGAL DICTIONARY, the meaning of "abate" is shown as - “Abate-1. To put an end to, to curtail (Order 22 RL, CPC); 2. to put an end to legal proceedings without an order or judgment on merits in favour of the defendant. 9. It has not been disputed by the counsel for the respondent that in view of 3rd proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 15 of SICA, 1985, a reference as was pending before BIER shall abate. It has not been made clear that if a proceeding stands abate, i.e., to put an end, come to naught, and thereby the legal/quasi judicial proceeding is closed without an order or judgment on merit, how such proceeding could be deemed to he pending for the purpose of any other purpose under another Act. We are of the view that once a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding abates, it will be deemed to be no proceeding pending in the eye of law for all purpose. In view of the fact that the reference pending before the BIFR at the instance of the re-spondent-company stands abated, the respondent-company cannot derive advantage of Section 22 of SICA, I985. The original application preferred by the secured creditor-Bank (petitioner herein), therefore cannot be kept pending for decision of a non-existent reference purported to be pending before BIFR. 10. For the reason aforesaid, the impugned order dated 14. 2007, passed by the DRAT in M.A. No.191 of 2006 cannot be upheld and the same is accordingly set aside. The writ petition is allowed and the case is remitted with direction to DRT to decide the original application on merits in accordance with law after hearing the parties. There shall be no order as to costs.