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 ] , South Indian Bank Limited and Others v. Naveen Mathew Philip and Another , [2023 SCC OnLine SC 435] , G.Vikram Kumar v. State Bank of Hyderabad , [2023 SCC OnLine SC 549] , Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) (P) Ltd. , [ (2024) 2 SCC 1 ] and PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank and Others , [ AIR 2024 SC 1893 ] 4. There is no debate before us that the remedy of approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal was available to the Appellant. If the directions issued by the High Court are not duly complied with, it may result in the dismissal of the writ proceedings. Despite that the Petitioner subsequently approaches the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the Tribunal may decline to entertain the matter on the ground that the order of this Court has been violated or that the Appellant cannot agitate the issue concluded by this Court. But that would be a decision for the Tribunal to take. A statutory right to seek recourse before a court of law could not have been extinguished by the issuance of a writ. But that would be a decision for the Tribunal to take. A statutory right to seek recourse before a court of law could not have been extinguished by the issuance of a writ. In fact, following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above decisions, as contended by the Respondents, the Appellant/Original Petitioner should have been relegated to the remedy available before the Debt Recovery Tribunal at the inception itself. 5. Therefore, while we confirm the rest of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, we make it clear that if the Appellant has any grievance surviving regarding the measures initiated by the Respondent-Bank under the SARFAESI Act, it is open to the Appellant- Bank to adopt the said remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Accordingly, it is ordered that the rest of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge shall remain the same. 6. The Writ Appeals are accordingly disposed of.