ROY MATHEW Vs. P.J.JAMES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this writ petition, the petitioners call into question 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.) As I proceed to consider the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners herein, 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon ((2010) 8 SCC 110) and followed recently in Authorised Officer, SBT v. Mathew (ILR 2018 (1) Ker. 479). I, therefore, cannot and do not propose to consider any of the legal contentions raised by the petitioners on its merits.