4 Mr.Sen submits that, the above Notice of Motion was dismissed may be with observations that the decree passed in favour of the SICOM has not yet been set aside, the relief which is sought under Section 21 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 cannot be granted; however, that does not prevent the Judgment Debtor moving the present Notice of Motion praying for setting aside the order dated 03.10.2006 and dismissal of the Insolvency Petition itself because the requirement of Section 9(2) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 has not been satisfied at all. Although, Mr.Sen would concede that first part of Section 9 has been satisfied namely, there is a decree passed by the Civil Court in Summary Suit on 05.02.2003, that decree could not have been executed by the Civil Court by virtue of notification dated 23.02.2004 under which the SICOM has been declared as a Public Financial Institution. The moment it is so declared, then, the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (in short RDDB Act, 1993) are attracted. The remedy of the Petitioning Creditor to execute the subject decree, was making an application to the competent Debts Recovery Tribunal seeking recovery certificate and only on the strength of such recovery certificate, the decree of this Court would have been executed through the mechanism and machinery provided by the RDDB Act, 1993. Once the Civil Court lost jurisdiction to execute the subject decree and it could have been executed only by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, then, the date on which the Insolvency Notice came to be issued and the date on which it was made absolute, the Court had no jurisdiction. Mr.Sen submits that the proceedings under Section 9(2) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 (in short PTI Act, 1909) are initiated for execution of the decree. Relying on the judgment of this
