JUDGMENT

The petitioner challenges Ext.P10 order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal – 1, Ernakulam, in I.A.No.2425/2024 in S.A. No.469/2024. The petitioners essentially contended before the Tribunal that the principal borrower was their late father, Gopal Hirendra Kamath, who died on 08.10.2022 and therefore, all actions taken against the secured asset are null and void.

2. The respondent Bank inter alia contended that the 1^st petitioner is a co-borrower and the 2^nd petitioner is a guarantor for the credit facilities availed by the principal borrower, and therefore, no illegality can be found in the bank proceeding against the co-borrower and the guarantor. As far as the 3rd petitioner is concerned, the Bank submits that against her also, they have moved the Magistrate Court concerned, under Section 14 and produced a copy of the petition filed along with a memo.

3. Be that as it may, Ext.P10 is an order which can be challenged under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act . No grounds are made out to challenge the same in this original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, despite the existence of the appellate remedy.