JUDGMENT SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. 1. Challenging notice dated 11.10.2013 issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. On 27.08.2010, M/s. Buddha Vihar Construction Private Limited took Working Capital Demand loan of Rs. 1,40,00,000 from the respondent-State Bank of India. The petitioner stood as a Guarantor and deposited 4 Title Deeds of property. On 25.09.2012, a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was issued which was subsequently withdrawn vide letter dated 20.06.2013. Thereafter, the respondent-Bank filed O.A. No. 194 of 2013 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi for recovery of Rs. 1,63,51,070 along with pendente lite and future interest. While proceeding in O.A. No. 194 of 2013 continued, the respondentBank arbitrarily and illegally issued notice dated 11.10.2013 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and took possession of the mortgaged property. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that two proceedings simultaneously under The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 as well as under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 are not permissible and till the decision in O.A. No. 194 of 2013, the respondent-Bank was duty-bound not to initiate action under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and therefore, the entire proceeding under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is illegal and liable to be quashed. It is further submitted that the object behind the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is to recover the money due to the bank/financial institutions and since the petitioner has shown intention to repay dues to the respondent-Bank, the notice u/s 13(4) dated 11.10.2013 is liable to be quashed. It is further submitted that after notice under Section 13(2) dated 25.09.2012 was withdrawn, the respondent Bank could not have filed O.A. No. 194 of 2013. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State Bank of India submitted that the earlier notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 which was issued on 25.09.2012 was withdrawn due to technical reasons and therefore, a fresh notice under Section 13(2) was issued in proper format on 20.06.2013. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State Bank of India submitted that the earlier notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 which was issued on 25.09.2012 was withdrawn due to technical reasons and therefore, a fresh notice under Section 13(2) was issued in proper format on 20.06.2013. The petitioner submitted representation under Section 13(3A) on 24.08.2013 which was immediately replied vide letter dated 02.09.2013. On the promise of the petitioner to pay the monthly installments and other dues regularly, further action under SARFAESI Act was kept at abeyance and therefore, the possession notice under Section 13(4) was not published. However, after 17.10.2013 the petitioner miserably failed to deposit the loan amount. It is further submitted that in Transcore vs. Union of India & Another, (2008) 1 SCC 125 , it has been categorically held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the proceeding under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 can continue simultaneously. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 7. Before adverting to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to examine the maintainability of the writ petition. In Mardia Chemicals Ltd. & Others vs. Union of India & Others, (2004) 4 SCC 311 , while upholding the constitutional validity of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:- "81. The effect of some of the provisions may be a bit harsh for some of the borrowers but on that ground the impugned provisions of the Act cannot be said to be unconstitutional in view of the fact that the object of the Act is to achieve speedier recovery of the dues declared as NPAs and better availability of capital liquidity and resources to help in growth of the economy of the country and welfare of the people in general which would sub-serve the public interest." 8. In United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon and Others, (2010) 8 SCC 110 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that:- "43. In United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon and Others, (2010) 8 SCC 110 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that:- "43. The High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. In our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues etc. the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, the High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute." 9. In Satyawati Tondon case, after taking note of the judgment in Thansingh Nathmal vs. Superintendent of Taxes Dhubri and Others, AIR 1964 SC 1419 and other judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus:- "55. It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and the SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection." 10. It is a matter of record that the petitioner has filed a SARFAESI Appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi challenging notice dated 11.10.2013 under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Insofar as, the contention of the petitioner that the proceeding under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 as well as proceeding under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 cannot continue simultaneously, the issue is no longer res integra. Insofar as, the contention of the petitioner that the proceeding under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 as well as proceeding under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 cannot continue simultaneously, the issue is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Transcore vs. Union of India & Another (supra). Mathew Varghese vs. M. Amritha Kumar & Others, (2014) 5 SCC 610 cases, has categorically held that the proceedings in both the Acts are complementary to each other and both can continue simultaneously. 11. In Mathew Varghese vs. M. Amritha Kumar & Others, (2014) 5 SCC 610 , a somewhat identical question has been answered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in these words:- "45. A close reading of Section 37 shows that the provisions of the SARFAESI Act or the Rules framed thereunder will be in addition to the provisions of the RDDB Act. Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act states that the provisions of the SARFAESI Act will have overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other law for the time being in force. Therefore, reading Sections 35 and 37 together, it will have to be held that in the event of any of the provisions of the RDDB Act not being inconsistent with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, the application of both the Acts, namely, the SARFAESI Act and the RDDB Act, would be complementary to each other. In this context reliance can be placed upon the decision in Transcore vs. Union of India. In Para 64 it is stated as under after referring to Section 37 of the SARFAESI Act." "64. According to American Jurisprudence, 2d, Vol. 25, page 652, if in truth there is only one remedy, then the doctrine of election does not apply. In the present case, as stated above, the NPA Act is an additional remedy to the DRT Act. Together they constitute one remedy and, therefore, the doctrine of election does not apply. Even according to Snell's Principles of Equity (31st Edition, page 119), the doctrine of election of remedies is applicable only when there are two or more coexistent remedies available to the litigants at the time of election which are repugnant and inconsistent. Together they constitute one remedy and, therefore, the doctrine of election does not apply. Even according to Snell's Principles of Equity (31st Edition, page 119), the doctrine of election of remedies is applicable only when there are two or more coexistent remedies available to the litigants at the time of election which are repugnant and inconsistent. In any event, there is no repugnancy nor inconsistency between the two remedies, therefore, the doctrine of election has no application." 12. In the result, I find no merit in this writ petition and according, the present writ petition is dismissed.