ANIL KUMAR T T Vs. SOUTH INDIAN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners assail certain proceedings initiated and being pursued by the respondent Bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act ('the SARFAESI Act' for brevity).

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent Bank.

(3.) When I deal with this writ petition, I am conscious that I am jurisdictionally proscribed from entering into any enquiry or consideration of the legality or otherwise of the orders impugned in this writ petition on account of the imperative statutory provisions and the binding judicial pronouncements, especially that of the Honourable Supreme Court in Union Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon, 2010 8 SCC 110, and in Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Another Vs. Mathew K.C., 2018 1 KerLT 784,. I, therefore, cannot and do not propose to consider any of the legal contentions raised by the petitioners on its merits.