JUSTICE J.M. MALIK (ORAL) 1. State Bank of India filed an original application before the DRT-III, Mumbai, which passed a Decree in favour of the Bank and against M/s. PYX Laboratories (I) Ltd., the opposite party No.6, in the sum of Rs. 5,21,30,403/-. Mr.Sandipan Gangopadhyay, the complainant, was a Director in the said company. During the pendency of the case before DRT-III, Mumbai, negotiations for ne-timesettlement of dues against OP No.6, took place. It was agreed that Sandipan Gangopadhyay, the Complainant/Guarantor, would give the constructive possession of the following properties :- a) Movable property, i.e., plant and machinery installed in the factory premises situated at Plot No.C-105, Mahad Industrial Area, MIDC, Village Khajre Airwandi, Sub-District Mahad, District Raigadh; b) Immovable property comprising of land and building situated at Plot No.C-105, Mahad Industrial Area, MIDC, Village Khajre Airwandi, Sub-District Mahad, District Raigadh; and c) Residential Flat No.D-53, 2nd floor, Arenja Complex, Sector-8, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai The constructive possession was accordingly given to OP1, Bank. 2. The complainant was not served in the said case. He moved an application that he was not served with the summons of the original application. His application was dismissed by learned DRT, Navi Mumbai, vide order dated 08.10.2010. Appeal was filed and the DRT Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 30.03.2011 accepted the complaint and set aside the order dated 12.02.2004, passed by the DRT-III, Navi Mumbai. 3. In the meantime, it came to light that SBI, OP1, had assigned the Decree in favour of Assets Reconstruction Company Ltd. (ARCIL), OP2. It is alleged that the said assignment is bad. Again, an appeal was filed before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, which is still pending. It also came to light that OP2, in connivance with M/s. Lucky Scrap, OP3, Sh. Nadeen M. Alpro, OP4 and Ubiquitous Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd., OP5 has sold, transferred or parted with the movable and immovable properties, which were delivered to OP1, in full and final settlement of loan, borrowed by OP No.6. OP1 is liable to restore the movable and immovable properties in favour of complainant. The said property was sold for a song. OP No.4 is legally liable to return that property. The complainant had resigned as Director of OP6. OP1 had taken possession of property of OP6 under SARFAESI Act and, therefore, had discharged the principal Debtors, including the Guarantor, i.e., the complainant, for which the complainant came into the picture. OP1 was not aware of the pendency of the case before the DRT-III. He received letter on 30.07.2009, in USA and was shocked to learn about these proceedings. Consequently, this complaint was filed with the following prayers :- ) the opposite party No.1 be directed to get return through opposite party No.3, the movable properties, i.e., plant and machinery installed in the factory premises situated at Plot No.C-105, Mahad Industrial Area, MIDC, Village Khajre Airwandi, Sub-District Mahad, District Raigadh and take back Rs.60.10 lakhs, with interest at reasonable rate; b) the opposite party No.1 be directed to get return through opposite party No.4, immovable properties bearing residential flat No.D-53, Arenja complex, Sector-8, CBD, Belapur, Navi Mumbai and take back a sum of Rs.22 lakhs, with interest at reasonable rate; c) the opposite party No.1 be directed to get return through opposite party No.5, immovable property i.e. industrial plot bearing No.C-105, Mahad Industrial Area, MIDC, Village Khajre Airwandi, Sub-District Mahad, District Raigadh and take back a sum of Rs.37 lakhs with interest at reasonable rate ; OR d) In the alternative of (a), (b) and (c ), Opposite party No.1 be directed to write/set off the loan amount against the above said properties which were mortgaged/hypothecated with it, as had been principally agreed in the meeting held on 12.04.2003 for settlement between opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.6. e) award a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for mental torture and agony suffered by the complainant; f) cost of the complaint be awarded to the complainant and against the opposite party ; g) any other relief which this Honle Commission may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be awarded to the complainant and against the opposite parties 4. We have heard the counsel for the complainant. The attention of the learned counsel for the complainant was invited towards a judgment passed by this Commission in Yashwant G. Ghaisas & Ors. Vs. Bank of Maharashtra, on 06.12.2012, in Consumer Complaint No.302 of 2012, wherein we have held as under :- 8. It is clear that this case is covered under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Section 34 of the said Act is reproduced as hereunder : 4. Civil court not to have jurisdiction. No civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act or under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993) The complaint was dismissed. 5. Against this order, Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.1359 of 2013 was preferred by the complainant, before the Honle Apex Court. The Honle Apex Court, vide order dated 01.03.2013, was pleased to approve the findings given by this Commission and has held as under : 9.The National Commission is not empowered to arrogate to itself the powers which come within the jurisdiction of Debt Recovery Tribunals. This matter is purely covered within the jurisdiction of DRT or DRAT. If there is any grievance against the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, that should be brought to the notice of the concerned authority. It is well settled that main Creditor and the Guarantors are equally responsible. There lies no rub for the Bank to take action against the Guarantor directly. It cannot be alleged that he is adopting the policy of pick and choose. From the allegations stated above, there appears to be no deficiency on the part of the opposite party. In case the Bankers are working within the ambit of SARFAESI Act, it cannot be said to be deficiency on the part of the Bank. It must be established that there is deficiency on the part of the Bank. In that case, this Commission can take action. For the reasons stated above, the complaint is dismissed at the stage of its admission. Nothing will preclude the complainants from approaching appropriate Forum as per law 6. The learned counsel for the complainant gave no response. In view of these authorities, we hereby dismiss the complaint, with no order as to costs. Nothing will debar the complainant to seek redressal of his grievances from any other Forum, as per law.