JUDGMENT : Vineet Kothari, J. 1. This Appeal has been filed by Tamil Nadu Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited (TANFED) aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 24th October, 2018, by which the learned Single Judge lifted the attachment over the land which was the secured asset of the Indian Bank, which was assigned to the Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited (in short 'ARCIL'). The reason assigned by the learned Single Judge for lifting the said attachment in favour of the ARCIL was on the anvil of Section 26 E introduced in the SARFAESI Act, 2002 which gives overriding effect to the security interest in favour of the secured creditors covered under the provisions of the said Act. The said Section 26 E of the Act, which is akin to Section 31B of the Recovery of Debts Provisions Act reads as under: "26-E. Priority to secured creditors.-Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, after the registration of security interest, the debts due to any secured creditor shall be paid in priority over all other debts and all revenues, taxes, cesses and other rate payable to the Central Government or State Government or local authority. Explanation: For the purpose of this Section, it is hereby clarified that on or after the commencement of the insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016), in cases where insolvency or bankruptcy proceedings are pending in respect of secured assets of the borrower, priority to secured creditors in payment of debt shall be subject to the provisions of that Code." 2. The learned counsel for the Appellant Mr. B. Arvind Srevatsa submitted that the attachment in favour of the Decree Holder/TANFED was ordered by the Civil Court in favour of the Plaintiff/TANFED way back in the year 1997 vide order dated 22.12.1997 passed in A. No. 1814 of 1997 in C.S. No. 304 of 1997 filed by the Plaintiff/TANFED for recovery of its money against the supplies made to the Company M/s. Maxwell Exim Private Limited, on whose defaults the Bank of India undertook the proceedings under SARFAESI law and assigned the debts in favour of the ARCIL. He submitted that even though the assignment in favour of the said Respondent ARCIL was made in the year 2007, they approached the learned Court below only in the year 2014 after about seven years and therefore on account of delay and latches, their application did not deserve to be considered, much less allowed. He also submitted that the land in question claimed to be the secured interest of the assignee ARCIL was less as per the Schedule produced with the application only to the extent of 7.345 acres, whereas the land as shown in the Chart produced with their application in the Civil Court was 10.23 acres and therefore, the excess land could remain in the attachment of the Decree Holder and the decree of the Appellant could be satisfied out of such shown excess land. 3. Per contra, Mr. N.L. Rajah, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent ARCIL submitted that the issue is no longer res integra and in view of the overriding provisions of Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act, the Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Assistant Commissioner (CT) V. The Indian Overseas Bank in W.P. No. 2675 of 2011 and other batch of cases, has decided on 10.11.2016 that while dealing with a similar provisions of Section 31B of the RDB Act which was also similarly worded with non obstante clause as Section 26E of the Act, that there is no doubt that the rights of secured creditors to realise the secured debts due and payable to them by sale of assets over which security interest is created, will have priority over all other debts and the Government dues including revenues, taxes, cesses and rates due to the Central Government, State Government and Legal Authority. Following the said Division Bench Judgment, the learned Single Judge of this Court had applied the same ratio dealing with the provisions of Section 26 E of the Act also held that the rights of the secured creditors under Section 26 E will prevail over all other dues including the Government dues. 4. Following the said Division Bench Judgment, the learned Single Judge of this Court had applied the same ratio dealing with the provisions of Section 26 E of the Act also held that the rights of the secured creditors under Section 26 E will prevail over all other dues including the Government dues. 4. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, we are of the clear opinion that as far as the position of law is concerned, it is settled beyond the pale of doubt that in view of the overriding non obstante provisions enacted in Section 26 E of the SARFAESI Act as well as Section 31B of the RDB Act, the realisation of the secured interest for satisfying the debts of the secured creditors shall prevail over all other dues including the decretal dues under the decrees passed by the Civil Courts and the Government dues like taxes, cesses etc. The purpose of enacting this special provisions with non obstante clause is obvious i.e., to give them an overriding effect over the dues of other persons or Departments. Therefore, the dues under a decree held to the Appellant/TANFED has to take a back seat behind the secured interest claimed by the financial institutions or his assignee like ARCIL in the present case. Therefore, there is no iota of doubt that the learned Single Judge was justified in lifting or raising or removing the attachment over the secured interest or the land in question which is secured of the secured creditor Bank of India/ARCIL in the present case. 5. As far as the claims, based on facts or objections like the extent of land, being the secured interest of the Bank/Assignee's concerned or its value being an excess etc. if any, are concerned, these factual issues are required to be gone into by the concerned Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Authorised Officer thereof, who is dealing with the said security interest under the provisions of the SARFASEI Act/RDB Act. The Appellant/TANFED, the Decree Holder is of course free to raise all these factual objections or such claims before the concerned Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Authorised Officer of DRT. 6. With these observations, the present Original Side Appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.