ORDER The petitioner, which is a bank, files this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the correctness of the orders dismissing an application filed by it purportedly under Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (For brevity 'SARFAESI Act') as per the orders in I.A.No.554 of 2007 in I.P.No. 15 of 2007, dated 8-10-2007, on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. 2. The brief account on the back, which gives rise to the present proceedings are that the respondent NO.1 herein has filed a petition purportedly under Section 10 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 to adjudicate him as an insolvent showing that there exists liabilities to a tune of RS.3,37,83,000-00 to different individuals including the petitionerbank. In the schedule B attached thereto the immovable property belonging to him is shown as items NO.1 to 3. The said petition was filed on 13-4-2007 and was registered on 17-4-2007 in the Court below. Since the petitioner bank was added as a party respondent, notice was sent to the petitioner and it was served on the petitioner on 31-5-2007. 3. Subsequently, on 7-6-2007 the petitioner had issued the notice purportedly under sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, which was received by the respondent NO.1 on 12-6-2007. The petitioner got published the same in the newspapers on 13-7-2007 and 14-7-2007. However, there appears no response or any reply by the respondent NO.1. 4. While the matter stood thus, since the Official Receiver appointed in the impugned insolvency petition, who is added as 2nd respondent herein has taken over the properties above mentioned at items 1 to 3 under schedule-B, the present application has been filed by the petitioner for a direction to the Official Receiver to remove the seals against the item No.1 of the schedule B property. The case of the petitioner in brief was to the effect that the respondent No.1 had availed a cash credit limit for his business carried out by him as a partner of M/s. Siva Computerised Printing Center on 16-10-2004 wherein his wife and son are the partners. The said loan of Rs.5,00,000/- is repayable with interest at 11.75% p.a compounded monthly and there is an outstanding of Rs.14,34,507 -01 ps. The said loan of Rs.5,00,000/- is repayable with interest at 11.75% p.a compounded monthly and there is an outstanding of Rs.14,34,507 -01 ps. It is also the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.1 had availed a term loan towards the said business for a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- on the same date i.e., 16-10-2004 repayable with interest at 11.7% per annum compounded monthly and there exists debt balance of Rs.16,87,448/-. Further the 1st respondent also availed a housing loan of Rs.6,00,000/- on 9-9-2004 under loan account NO.350400084 with interest at 7.7% of which the outstanding balance is Rs.5,62,359/-. The respondent NO.1 had also obtained another house loan on 2-12-2004 for Rs.1,50,000/- under loan account No. 350400184, which is repayable with interest at 7.7% per annum and the balance as existed was Rs.1,38,959/-. It was submitted that at the timeof availing these loans the respondent NO.1 has created equitable mortgage of the said item NO.1 of the B Schedule as a collateral security and all the machinery movables, materials, stationary and other accessories situated in the said property are hypothecated to the bank. Therefore, it is the case of the petitioner that it is a secured creditor in respect of item NO.1 of B schedule property since it was exclusively mortgaged to it. Therefore, since these loans were not discharged, the petitioner is entitled to enforce the said security under the provisions of SARFAESI Act. The petitioner states that it has first charge over the said property and no other person can make any claim over the same. Therefore, the very proceedings as initiated against the petitioner under Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 is not maintainable and the said item property could not have been included in the schedule nor can be proceeded against in those proceedings. 5. Even though the official receiver was aware of the first charge with the petitioner since its name was found in the said property, yet he sold it. Therefore such action on the part of the official receiver and the entire proceedings are not valid and thus the petitioner sought for removal of seals. 6. Contesting the claim of the petitioner, the respondent NO.1 denied the main allegations and pointed out that even though the petitioner was served with the notice in the insolvency petition on 31-5-2007 no proceedings were initiated under the SARFAESI Act. 6. Contesting the claim of the petitioner, the respondent NO.1 denied the main allegations and pointed out that even though the petitioner was served with the notice in the insolvency petition on 31-5-2007 no proceedings were initiated under the SARFAESI Act. Further even the procedure as contemplated under Section 13 of the said Act has not been followed up and therefore the petitioner has no right or any locus to file the present application or seek any relief. That apart, it was also pointed out that the amount of loan liability to the petitioner is far lesser than the other liabilities with the other creditors and therefore the very application is not maintainable. 7. The 2nd respondent-official receiver also filed counter only to the effect that it' had taken possession of the property from the 151 respondent and seized in exercise of power under Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 and therefore his custody is lawful and thus sought for dismissal of the application. 8. The Court below after considering the rival submissions and also taking into account the exhibits filed from both sides, dismissed the application mainly holding that the amount of liability towards the petitioner is very less compared to the liability of the respondent NO.1 to the general creditors and since the official receiver appointed by the Court in the insolvency petition has already taken over charge and seized the property and further the petitioner having not initiated any steps under Section 32 of the said Act being latter to the insolvency proceedings and therefore it had to wait along with other creditors though it is a secured creditor and for the purpose of determination of his claim and entitlement. 9. In view of the submissions made across the Bar from both sides and on perusal of the material, the point which arises for consideration is as to whether on the facts and circumstances the bank as secured creditor can claim any preference under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act over the steps taken or proceedings under the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920? 10. There is no dispute to the above referred events which have given rise to the present proceedings where the respondent being a debtor has filed a petition under Section 10 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 to adjudicate him as an insolvent. 10. There is no dispute to the above referred events which have given rise to the present proceedings where the respondent being a debtor has filed a petition under Section 10 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 to adjudicate him as an insolvent. The total liability is shown by the respondent NO.1 in the petition was at RS.3,37,83,000-00. Amongst the several other creditors the petitioner bank was shown as respondent NO.103. There is also no denial to the fact that subsequent to the filing of the said insolvency petition on 13-4-2007 the notice therein was served on the petitioner on 31-5-2007. It is only thereafter, no doubt, the petitioner issued a notice under sub-clause (2) of Section 13 of the said Act on 7-6-2007, which was received by the respondent NO.1 on 12-6-2007. There is also no dispute to the fact that in the meanwhile the official receiver was appointed and has taken over item NO.1 in respect of which the petitioner claims charge under a mortgage. The said notice issued by the petitioner was published in the local newspapers on 13th and 14th July, 2007 whereas this application seems to have been filed in the Court below on 2-7-2007 itself. At the outset, the main controversy which arises in the case is as to the effect of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the steps taken vis-a-vis the proceedings initiated under the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920. Admittedly, the petitioner is a bank, a secured creditor, which is a registered company under the provisions of the Companies Act, the factum of which neither can be disputed nor can be denied as such. The respondent NO.1 in his petition to adjudicate him as insolvent, which was filed on 13-4-2007 has impleaded the petitioner as respondent NO.1 03 and the petitioner was served with a notice on 31-5-2007. There is no serious dispute in regard to the loans obtained by the respondent NO.1 and the liability arising therein as mentioned above. At this juncture, it is relevant to take note of Section 8 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, which reads as follows: 8. Exemption of corporation, etc., from insolvency proceedings No insolvency petition shall be presented against any corporation or against any association or company registered under any enactment for the time being in force. 11. At this juncture, it is relevant to take note of Section 8 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, which reads as follows: 8. Exemption of corporation, etc., from insolvency proceedings No insolvency petition shall be presented against any corporation or against any association or company registered under any enactment for the time being in force. 11. On a bare reading of the above Section, it is quite apparent that the corporation or the associations or companies registered under any enactment in force are exempted from being proceeded against. Therefore, it is not explained as to how and why the respondent NO.1 has included the petitioner as one of the creditors in the insolvency petition under Section 10 -of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920. Therefore, under the scheme of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, having regard to such a specific exemption given under the aforesaid provision, it cannot be said that a bank, which is a registered company can fall well within the mischief of the creditor for the purpose of the said Act. Therefore, the question of invoking the provisions of the Insolvency Act against petitioner bank does not arise nor is valid. Therefore, the very application as has been framed and filed purportedly under Section 10 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 against the petitioner is not maintainable. 12. With the aforesaid background now another aspect which requires to be considered is the effect of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. In respect of the liabilities to a bank or financial institution, the remedies for such an institution to proceed against has undergone substantial change in view of the enactment of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 followed by a very reformative legislation under SARFAESI Act. These legislations provide for the enforcement of the security interest and provides for a very quick remedy. The constitutional validity and the provisions of the latter Act viz., SARFAESI Act was also upheld by the Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals v. ICICI Bank. 13. Further Section 13 of the latter Act provides for the action to be initiated and taken at the instance of the bank. Admittedly, in the present case notice under Section 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act was issued to the respondent No.1 on 7-6-2007 and the same was served on 12-6-2007. Later publication in newspapers was also done on 13th and 14th July, 2007. Admittedly, in the present case notice under Section 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act was issued to the respondent No.1 on 7-6-2007 and the same was served on 12-6-2007. Later publication in newspapers was also done on 13th and 14th July, 2007. Therefore, the petitioner did invoke and initiate the action under the said Act, which is already set in motion. However, there is nothing on record to show that there is any response or any reply thereto by the respondent No.1. Immediately, the present application was filed by the petitioner in the Court below. Having regard to the nature of special legislation and the remedies provided there-under, necessarily these proceedings would prevail over any other law and proceedings. As already stated above, since the question of initiating any insolvency proceedings against a company/bank is not sustainable nor valid having regard to the exemption provided under the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, it would not come in the way of any proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act. Necessarily, it follows that any such proceedings initiated by the respondent NO.1 for the reasons best known to him would be subject the ultimate action that would be taken under the provisions of SARFAESI Act. Therefore, the entire proceedings since inception at the instance of respondent NO.1 under the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 are not maintainable, invalid and void and therefore any action taken there-under would not affect the action as contemplated under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. 14. Therefore, the Court below was not right in rejecting the petitioner's claim simply on the ground that there was no such action initiated earlier than the filing of the insolvency petition and further the official receiver had taken over the possession. As already stated, all these actions are subject to the final proceedings under the provisions of SARFAESI Act. Therefore, the question of the petitioner bank or any financial institution of like nature which are exempted under Section 8 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 need not fall in queue to wait for the ultimate disposal or distribution of the assets as normally contemplated under the provisions of Provincial Insolvency, Act, 1920. In the circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 15. In the circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 15. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 8-10-2007 made in I.A.No.554 of 2007 in I.P.No. 15 of 2007, on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur is set aside and I.A.No.554 of 2007 in I.P.No.15 of 2007 is allowed, however, subject to further steps taken as provided for under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. No costs.