ORDER : Vipul M. Pancholi, J. 1. This is an appeal by the appellants-original petitioners, filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, challenging the judgment and order, Dated: 24.11.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 22493 of 2022, whereby, the petition filed by the appellants came to be dismissed 2. Brief facts of the case, leading to the filing of the present appeal, reads thus; Petitioner no.1, which is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, is engaged in the business of manufacturing of transmission line hardware, upto 800kV. It may be noted that the Bank, which was formerly known as the Dena Bank, had advanced financial assistance to appellant No.1 in the years 1995 and 2005. 2.1 Since, appellant no.1-Company was unable to pay the outstanding dues of the bank, the account of appellant no.1-Company was declared as NPA (Non-Performing Asset) in the year 2008 by the Dena Bank. Pursuant thereto, the proceedings under the The Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’, hereinafter) were initiated in the year 2009. Thereafter, the Original Application being OA No. 121 of 2010 was also filed before the DRT-II, under the provisions of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (in brief, ‘RDB Act’). 2.2 It appears that, at that point of time, a settlement was arrived at between appellant no.1 and the Opponent-Bank in the year 2010 and the same was produced before the DRT- II, whereupon, the Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) passed the order dated 10.08.2011 and disposed of OA No. 121 of 2010, on the basis of the out of court compromise arrived at between the parties. 2.3 Since, appellant No.1 failed to comply with the consent terms arrived at between the parties, the Respondent-Bank instituted the proceedings, being RP No. 75 of 2011, before the Recovery Officer DRT-II. It may be noted that the appellants did not disclose the aforesaid aspect before the Recovery Officer till today, except, referring to an order dated 25.08.2014, which was passed by the Recovery Officer. As per the consent terms, the settlement amount was to be paid by 2014-2015. It may be noted that the appellants did not disclose the aforesaid aspect before the Recovery Officer till today, except, referring to an order dated 25.08.2014, which was passed by the Recovery Officer. As per the consent terms, the settlement amount was to be paid by 2014-2015. 2.4 The Opponent-Bank, thereafter, preferred application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short ‘IBC’), against the appellants being CP(IB) No. 629/7/NCLT/AHM/2018 on the ground of non-payment on the part of the appellants. In the meantime, Dena Bank came to be merged with the Opponent- Bank of Baroda in the year 2019. Later on, the aforesaid application was disposed of as withdrawn by The National Company Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad (for short ‘NCLT’), vide order dated 05.02.2020, on the ground that the matter has been settled out of Court. The Opponent-Bank, thereafter, preferred IA No. 300 of 2022 in RP No. 75 of 2011 for recovery of the outstanding dues on 30.06.2022 and the same was allowed by the Recovery Officer on 22.07.2022, whereby, the Court Commissioner was appointed to take the possession of the properties of Petitioner No.1-Company, which were mortgaged with the Opponent-Bank and the possession of the same was taken over on 02.10.2022, accordingly. 2.5 Being aggrieved with the same, the appellants challenged the entire proceedings of RP No. 75 of 2011 before the learned Single Judge of this Court, contending that the same is in contravention of the order dated 05.02.2020, passed in CP(IB) No. 629/7/NCLT/AHM/2018, which was filed under Section 7 of the IBC. 2.6 After hearing the learned Advocates for the parties, the learned Single Judge passed the impugned judgment and order dated 24.11.2022, whereby, the petition filed by the appellants came to be dismissed. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard, learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Shalin Mehta, appearing with learned Advocate, Mr. Purohit, for the appellants and learned Advocate, Ms. Lodha, appearing for the Opponent-Bank. 4. Learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Mehta, appearing with Mr. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard, learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Shalin Mehta, appearing with learned Advocate, Mr. Purohit, for the appellants and learned Advocate, Ms. Lodha, appearing for the Opponent-Bank. 4. Learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Mehta, appearing with Mr. Purohit, for the appellants assailed the judgment and order dated 24.11.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge, mainly on the ground that the Opponent-bank had filed the application under Section 7 of the IBC and the same was, later on, withdrawn, on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties, and therefore, the Opponent-Bank is required to be prohibited from undertaking further recovery proceedings before the DRT-II by issuing the writ of prohibition and by quashing and setting aside the entire proceedings of RP No. 75 of 2011. 4.1 It was submitted that the appellants are ready and willing to pay the amount, as per the settlement arrived at between the parties, as per the modalities, which may be suggested by the Opponent Bank. 4.2 It was submitted that, once, the application filed under Section 7 of the IBC was withdrawn by the Opponent-Bank, unconditionally, recovery proceedings could not have been initiated by it and the same requires to be quashed and set aside. 4.3 Learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Mehta, then, referred to the orders dated 25.08.2014 and 12.01.2017, passed by the DRT-II, the copies whereof are produced at Pages- 12 and 58, respectively. 4.3.1 Learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Mehta, also referred to the order dated 12.01.2018 passed by the DRT-II, a copy of which is produced at Page-61 of the compilation. 4.3.1.1 After referring to the above orders, it was submitted that the Opponent-Bank has failed to comply with the aforesaid order and instead, filed CP(IB) No. 629/7/NCLT/AHM/2018 before the NCLT. 4.4 Learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Mehta, then, referred to the affidavit-in-rejoinder filed by the appellants in the present appeal, so also the withdrawal pursis / application filed by the Opponent-Bank before the NCLT as well as to the order dated 05.02.2022, passed in CP(IB) No. 629/7/NCLT/AHM/2018 by the NCLT. 4.5 Learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Mehta, submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in placing reliance on the provisions of Section 30 of the RDB Act and thereby, committed a grave error by dismissing the petitioner filed by the appellants. 4.5 Learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. Mehta, submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in placing reliance on the provisions of Section 30 of the RDB Act and thereby, committed a grave error by dismissing the petitioner filed by the appellants. 4.6 It was, therefore, urged that the present appeal be allowed and the reliefs, as prayed for, may be granted. 5. On the other hand, learned Advocate, Ms. Lodha, appearing for the Opponent-Bank vehemently opposed this appeal and submitted that there is nothing on the record to suggest that, in fact, a settlement was arrived at between the parties in the year 2018. 5.1 Learned Advocate, Ms. Lodha, invited the attention of this Court to the communication dated 04.02.2020, which was sent by the Chief Manager of the Opponent-Bank to the learned Advocate, who was appearing for the Bank before the NCLT, at the relevant point of time and it was submitted that there is no reference, with regard to any settlement arrived at between the parties, in the said communication. 5.2 Learned Advocate, Ms. Lodha, further, submitted that after the consent terms, which were arrived at between the parties in the year 2010, the original application was disposed of by the DRT in the year 2011. However, since, the appellants failed to pay the outstanding dues, as per the Consent Terms, according to the learned Advocate, Ms. Lodha, the consent terms had ceased to operate. 5.3 It was also pointed out from the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Opponent-Bank in the proceedings before this Court and submitted that after 22.07.2022, Recovery Officer passed several orders, which were not placed on record by the appellants. It was submitted that the possession of the movable and immovable properties, which were mortgaged with the opponent-Bank, of the appellants was taken over and thereafter, an E-auction / sell was held in December, 2022. 5.3.1 At this stage, it was also pointed out that, as the E-auction of the properties of the appellants was unsuccessful, a fresh self-proclamation was issued and the mortgaged properties were put to Eauction on 17.03.2023, once again. 5.3.2 It was submitted that the aforesaid order was passed in the presence of the learned advocate for the appellants in Recovery Proceedings No. 72 of 2011 and despite that the appellants did not point out the aforesaid aspect in the present appeal. 5.3.2 It was submitted that the aforesaid order was passed in the presence of the learned advocate for the appellants in Recovery Proceedings No. 72 of 2011 and despite that the appellants did not point out the aforesaid aspect in the present appeal. 5.4 It was, further, submitted that the appellants are having statutory and efficacious alternative remedy under Section 30 of the RDB Act, wherein, the appellants may point out all the relevant aspects. It was, thus, submitted that the learned Singe Judge committed no error in passing the impugned judgment and order. It was, therefore, urged that the present appeal be dismissed. 6. We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and also perused the material on record. It would emerge from the record that the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act were initiated in the year 2009 and later on, OA No. 121 of 2010 was also filed before the DRT-II under the RDB Act. It appears that the settlement was arrived at between the parties, later on, and the same was produced before the DRTII, whereupon, the order dated 10.08.2011 came to be passed. Since, the appellants did not comply with the Consent Terms, the Respondent-Bank initiated recovery proceedings vide RP No. 75 of 2011 before the DRT-II. 6.1 It appears that the DRT-II passed various orders between the years 2014 to 2017 and in the meantime, the Opponent-Bank initiated the proceedings, under Section 7 of the IBC, against the appellants, being CP(IB) No. 629/7/NCLT/AHM/2018, on the ground of nonpayment on the part of the appellants. We have perused the communication dated 04.02.2020, which was sent by the Chief Manager of the Opponent-Bank to the learned Advocate, who was appearing for the Bank before the NCLT, and we find that there is no mention of the parties having arrived at any compromise or settlement, therein. In fact, the communication dated 04.02.2020, simply instructs the learned Advocate for the Opponent-Bank to withdraw the said application, i.e. application No. CP(IB) No. 629/7/NCLT/AHM/2018. 6.2 It may be noted that it is the specific contention of the learned Advocate, Ms. Lodha, appearing for the Opponent-Bank that there is nothing on the record to suggest that the parties arrived at a settlement or compromise after 2018. 6.2 It may be noted that it is the specific contention of the learned Advocate, Ms. Lodha, appearing for the Opponent-Bank that there is nothing on the record to suggest that the parties arrived at a settlement or compromise after 2018. Further, the learned Single Judge has specifically observed that merely because the Opponent-Bank instituted the proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC and did not pursue the same, later on, it cannot be said that the Opponent-Bank abandoned its right to recover the outstanding dues. It may also be noted that the Recovery Certificate was issued by the DRT-II, on the basis of the consent terms, on 11.08.2011. 6.3 At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to Section 30 of the RDB Act, which reads thus; “30. Appeal against the order of Recovery Officer.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 29, any person aggrieved by an order of the Recovery Officer made under this Act may, within thirty days from the date on which a copy of the order is issued to him, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal. (2) On receipt of an appeal under sub-section (1), the Tribunal may, after giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard, and after making such inquiry as it deems fit, confirm, modify or set aside the order made by the Recovery Officer in exercise of his powers under sections 25 to 28 (both inclusive).” 6.4 It may be noted that the appellants prayed for issuance of writ of prohibition before the learned Single Judge, where, the learned Single Judge referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of ‘S. GOVINDA MENON VS. THE UNION OF INDIA & ANR.’, reported in AIR 1967 SC 1274 . The Apex Court, in the said decision, has observed that the writ of prohibition cannot be issued to inferior Court, for an error of law, unless, the error made is outside its jurisdiction. 6.5 In the present case, as observed herein above, the Opponent-bank has exercised its rights in accordance with law, and therefore, if, the appellants are aggrieved by any order passed by the Recovery Officer, the appropriate remedy for them is to file an appeal, under Section 30 of the RDB Act, before the DRT. 6.5 In the present case, as observed herein above, the Opponent-bank has exercised its rights in accordance with law, and therefore, if, the appellants are aggrieved by any order passed by the Recovery Officer, the appropriate remedy for them is to file an appeal, under Section 30 of the RDB Act, before the DRT. 6.6 In above view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that it cannot be said that the proceedings before the Recovery Officer are without jurisdiction, only because the Opponent-Bank had preferred an application under Section 7 of the IBC and withdrew the same, subsequently. 6.7 We have also gone through the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge and we find that no error is committed by the learned Single Judge in passing the impugned judgment and order. Therefore, no interference is called for at the hands of this Court in the present matter. 7. Resultantly, this appeal fails and the same is DISMISSED, accordingly.