down in the above said authorities, the jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain Petitioner's grievance is completely barred. The only remedy, therefore, which the aggrieved person, like Respondent No.1, is having, is of a right of appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Hence, in our considered opinion, the Securitisation Application preferred by Respondent No.1 before the Tribunal was very much maintainable. As to the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, in the case of Umang Sugar Pvt. Ltd. (supra), in our considered opinion, it cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case, as the facts of the Judgment were different. In that case, the bidder had filed Writ Petition raising certain grievances in respect of tender document. The maintainability of the Writ Petition was challenged on the count that there was an efficacious remedy available under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. In that context, it was held that the Petitioner, being a bidder only, and neither a borrower, nor a secured creditor, has a limited issue to the extent of recovering the E.M.D. and to withdraw from the tender proceedings. Therefore, he could not be said to be an “aggrieved person” in respect of the measures taken under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. It was further held that, “from the admitted facts, neither Respondent No.2-Bank, nor
