JUDGMENT :

Nitin Jamdar, C.J.

Heard Mr.Yash Thomas Mannully, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr.Arun Thomas, representing Mr.Jithesh Menon, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent.

2. Although the order passed by the learned Single Judge is substantially in favour of the Appellant, he has filed the Appeals aggrieved by the observations made in paragraph No.5 of the impugned order dated 4 November 2022 in W.P(C)No.30919 of 2022, which hold that that the Petitioner will not have any right to challenge the proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act)and culminating in the sale, before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

3. The learned counsel for the Respondent-Bank submitted that the petition itself ought not to have been entertained, as it was filed to challenge the measures initiated by the Respondent-Bank under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. The Respondent relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Others , [(2010) 8 SCC 110] , Agarwal Tracom (P) Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank , [(2018) 1 SCC 626] , So