JUDGMENT

The essential challenge pitched by the petitioner is against certain proceedings that have been initiated 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 petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent Bank.

3. 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 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 WPC 39795 OF 2018 3 (1) Ker. 479). I, therefore, do not propose to consider any of the contentions raised by the petitioner on merits.

4. However, obviously being aware of this issue, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has prayed that notwithstanding the limitations of jurisdiction as aforementioned, the petitioner may be granted some leniency or