Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
1. Read order dated 5.11.2014. It does not appear that the appellants are inclined to utilize that opportunity having regard to the amount that is mentioned in that order.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The respondent extended a facility to the appellants. There are disputes as to whether there is a sustainable mortgage or any other mode of creation of secured asset in favour of the respondent. Be that as it may, the learned single Judge is justified in taking the view that in matters under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, it would not be within the domain of the jurisdictional Magistrate to adjudicate or decide upon any W.A.No.1573/14 2 issue relating to the quality of the security on the basis of which enforcement of dispossession as a measure is sought for by an institution entitled to invoke the jurisdiction under the SARFAESI Act. Under such circumstances, we are clear in our mind that the proceedings before the learned Magistrate or the judgment of the learned single Judge will not, in any manner, affect the right of the appellants to statutory remedies in accordance with law, including from the Debt Recovery Tribunal. No observations in these proceedings will prejudice parties in any such proceedings and all those matters will obviously be decided untrammelled by anything contained in the impugned judgment or in this judgment.
Writ appeal ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) Sd/-
(BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE DG