Kerala High Court
M/S. M.D. Esthappan Infrastructure ... vs Reserve Bank Of India on 28 July, 2025
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
2025:KER:55272
R.P.Nos.797 of 2025 and 799 of 2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 6TH SRAVANA, 1947
RP NO.797 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.06.2025 IN WA NO.484 OF 2025
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS:
1 M/S. M.D. ESTHAPPAN INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, MR.
BIJI STEPEHEN HAVING ITS REGISTERED ADDRESS AT
144, RAILWAY STATION NAGAR, NEAR ST. JOSEPH HIGH
SCHOOL, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683572
2 MR. M.D. ESTHAPPAN, AGED 88 YEARS
MANAGING DIRECTOR OF M.S. M.D. ESTHAPPAN
INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., THROUGH POWER ATTORNEY
HOLDER MR. BIJI STEPEHEN S/O. DEVASSY, 14/306,
MOOLAN HOUSE, NH 47, NEAR ST. JOSEPH HIGH SCHOOL,
ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683572
BY ADVS.
SMT. MARIA NEDUMPARA
SHRI.SHAMEEM FAYIZ V.P.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS GOVERNOR, SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH
ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI, PIN - 400001
2025:KER:55272
R.P.Nos.797 of 2025 and 799 of 2025 2
2 BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF DHANLAXMI BANK LTD.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO & MANAGING DIRECTOR,
REGISTERED OFFICE, DHANALAKSHMI BUILDINGS, P.B
NO. 9, NAICKANAL, THRISSUR, KERALA,, PIN - 680001
3 DHANLAXMI BANK LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO & MANAGING DIRECTOR,
DHANALAKSHMI BUILDINGS, P.B. NO. 9, NAICKANAL,
THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680001
4 AUTHORISED OFFICER & CHIEF MANAGER
DHANLAXMI BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE,
DHANALAKSHMI BUILDINGS, 1ST FLOOR, MARINE DRIVE,
KOCHI, KERALA, PIN - 682031
5 MINISTRY OF MICRO SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, UDYOG BHAWAN, RAFI
MARG, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
6 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCIAL SERVICES, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, 3RD
FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, SANSAD MARG, NEW
DELHI, PIN - 110001
7 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
8 GENERAL MANAGER
DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, KAKKNADU, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682030
9 CHAIRMAN
EMPOWERED COMMITTEE ON MSMES, REGIONAL OFFICE,
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, BAKERY JUNCTION, P.B.
NO.6507, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
10 CHAIRMAN
STATE LEVEL INTER-INSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE,
REGIONAL OFFICE, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, BAKERY
JUNCTION, P.B. NO. 6507,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
2025:KER:55272
R.P.Nos.797 of 2025 and 799 of 2025 3
11 GAIL (INDIA) LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, KINFRA HI-
TECH PARK, OFF - HMT ROAD, HMT COLONY P.O.,
KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 680533
12 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KOCHI
REFINERY, AMBALAMUGAL, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682302
13 COCHIN SMART VISION LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, 10TH FLOOR,
REVENUE TOWER, PARK AVENUE, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
682011
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA (SR) FOR PETITIONER
SRI. C.K. KARUNAKARAN, COUNSEL FOR RESERVE BANK OF
INDIA;SMT. O. M. SHALINA, DSGI;
SMT. NISHA BOSE, SR. GP;
SRI. AJITH KRISHNAN, SC, COMPETENT AUTHORITY, GAIL
SRI. ABEL TOM BENNY, SC, BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATIONSMT.
M. U. VIJAYALAKSHMI, SC, COCHIN SMART MISSION LIMITED
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
11.07.2025, ALONG WITH RP.799/2025, THE COURT ON 28.07.2025
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:55272
R.P.Nos.797 of 2025 and 799 of 2025 4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 6TH SRAVANA, 1947
RP NO.799 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.06.2025 IN WA NO.481 OF 2025
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS:
1 M/S. M.D. ESTHAPPAN
REPRESENTED BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR, MR. M.D.
ESTHAPPAN, THROUGH POWER ATTORNEY HOLDER MR. BIJI
STEPHEN, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE ADDRESS AT:
PLOT NO. 434, BARI CO-OPERATIVE COLONY, BOKARO
STEEL CITY, BOKARO, ALSO AT 144, RAILWAY STATION
NAGAR, NEAR ST.JOSEPHS HIGH SCHOOL, ANGAMALY,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683572
2 MR. M.D. ESTHAPPAN, AGED 88 YEARS
THROUGH POWER ATTORNEY HOLDER MR. BIJI STEPHEN,
S/O. DEVASSY, 14/306, MOOLAN HOUSE, NH 47, NEAR
ST. JOSEPH HIGH SCHOOL, ANGAMALY,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683572
BY ADVS.
SMT. MARIA NEDUMPARA
SHRI.SHAMEEM FAYIZ V.P.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS GOVERNOR, SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH
ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI, PIN - 400001
2025:KER:55272
R.P.Nos.797 of 2025 and 799 of 2025 5
2 BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF DHANLAXMI BANK LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO & MANAGING DIRECTOR,
REGISTERED OFFICE, DHANALAKSHMI BUILDINGS, P.B
NO. 9, NAICKANAL, THRISSUR, KERALA,, PIN - 680001
3 DHANLAXMI BANK LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO & MANAGING DIRECTOR,
DHANALAKSHMI BUILDINGS, P.B. NO. 9, NAICKANAL,
THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680001
4 AUTHORISED OFFICER & CHIEF MANAGER
DHANLAXMI BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE,
DHANALAKSHMI BUILDINGS, 1ST FLOOR, MARINE DRIVE,
KOCHI, KERALA, PIN - 682031
5 THE CHAIRMAN
EMPOWERED COMMITTEE ON MSMES, REPRESENTED BY THE
REGIONAL DIRECTORS OF THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA,
RBI REGIONAL OFFICE, BAKERY JUNCTION, P.B. NO.
6507, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
6 CHAIRMAN
STATE LEVEL INTER INSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE, RBI
REGIONAL OFFICE, BAKERY JUNCTION, P.B. NO. 6507,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
7 CHAIRMAN
PRIME MINISTER'S TASK FORCE ON MSMES, PRIME
MINISTER'S OFFICE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN -
110001
8 CHAIRMAN
WORKING GROUP ON REHABILITATION OF SICK MSMES,
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI, PIN - 400001
9 BANKING CODES AND STANDARDS BOARD OF INDIA
(BCSBI)
WORLD TRADE CENTRE COMPLEX, 6TH FLOOR, CENTRE 1
BUILDING, WORLD TRADE CENTRE COMPLEX, CUFF
PARADE, MUMBAI, PIN - 400005
10 UNION OF INDIA
2025:KER:55272
R.P.Nos.797 of 2025 and 799 of 2025 6
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCIAL SERVICES, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, 3RD
FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, SANSAD MARG, NEW
DELHI, PIN - 110001
11 SECRETARY
DEPT. OF BANKING, MINISTRY OF FINANCIAL SERVICES,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, 3RD FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP
BUILDING, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
12 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
13 GENERAL MANAGER
DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, KAKKNADU, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682030
14 GAIL (INDIA) LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, KINFRA HI-
TECH PARK, OFF - HMT ROAD, HMT COLONY P.O.,
KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 680533
15 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KOCHI
REFINERY, AMBALAMUGAL, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682302
16 COCHIN SMART VISION LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, 10TH FLOOR,
REVENUE TOWER, PARK AVENUE,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011
17 ADV. ROSHITHA A.U
ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER APPOINTED IN M.C. 203/2024
IN THE FILES OF CJM, ERNAKULAM, DISTRICT BAR
ASSOCIATION ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011
18 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
ANKAMALY POLICE STATION, NEAR KSRTC STAND,
ANKAMALY P.O., KOCHI, PIN - 683572
19 ANIL DHIRAJLAL AMBANI
SEA WIND, CUFF PARADE, MUMBAI, PIN - 400005
2025:KER:55272
R.P.Nos.797 of 2025 and 799 of 2025 7
20 THE CHAIRMAN
STATE BANK OF INDIA, CORPORATE CENTER, 16TH
FLOOR, MADAM CAMA ROAD, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI,
PIN - 400021
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA (SR) FOR PETITIONER
SRI. C.K. KARUNAKARAN, COUNSEL FOR RESERVE BANK OF
INDIA;SMT. O. M. SHALINA, DSGI;
SMT. NISHA BOSE, SR. GP;
SRI. AJITH KRISHNAN, SC, COMPETENT AUTHORITY, GAIL
SRI. ABEL TOM BENNY, SC, BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATIONSMT.
M. U. VIJAYALAKSHMI, SC, COCHIN SMART MISSION LIMITED
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
11.07.2025, ALONG WITH RP.797/2025, THE COURT ON 28.07.2025
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING
2025:KER:55272
R.P.Nos.797 of 2025 and 799 of 2025 8
ORDER
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The appellants in W.A.Nos.481 of 2025 and 484 of 2025 have
filed these review petitions, invoking the provisions under Order
XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, seeking review of the judgment of this Court dated
24.06.2025 in W.A.Nos.481 of 2025 and 484 of 2025.
2. The 1st appellant in W.A.No.481 of 2025, arising out of
W.P.(C)No.45166 of 2024, is M/s.M.D. Esthappan, a sole
proprietorship concern, and the 2nd appellant M.D. Esthappan is
the sole proprietor of the said concern. The 1st appellant in
W.A.No.484 of 2025, arising out of W.P.(C)No.46514 of 2024, is
M/s.M.D. Esthappan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., a company
incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and the 2 nd
appellant M.D. Esthappan is the Managing Director of the said
company. The writ petitions were filed challenging the proceedings
initiated by the 3rd respondent Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd. under the
provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI
Act), seeking various reliefs. After considering the rival
2025:KER:55272
contentions, the learned Single Judge, by a common judgment
dated 11.03.2025, dismissed W.P.(C)Nos.45166 of 2024 and
46514 of 2024 on the ground that the writ petitioners have not
made out any case for the grant of the reliefs sought for in the
writ petitions.
3. Challenging the judgment dated 11.03.2025 of the
learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.45166 of 2024, the appellants-
writ petitioners filed W.A.No.481 of 2025. The judgment in
W.P.(C)No.46514 of 2024 was under challenge in W.A.No.484 of
2025. After considering the rival contentions, this Court by a
common judgment dated 24.06.2025 dismissed both the writ
appeals on a finding that the learned Single Judge cannot be found
fault with in not entertaining the writ petitions for the reasons
stated in the common judgment dated 11.03.2025.
4. Seeking review of the common judgment dated
24.06.2025, in W.A.Nos.481 of 2025 and 484 of 2025, the
appellants in those writ appeals have filed these review petitions.
5. On 04.07.2025, when these review petitions came up
for consideration, we heard arguments of the learned counsel for
the petitioners. Since the learned counsel for the petitioners
2025:KER:55272
sought adjournment, the review petitions were ordered to be
listed on 11.07.2025 for further arguments. On 11.07.2025, we
heard further arguments of the learned counsel for the review
petitioners and also the arguments of the learned Standing
Counsel for Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd. for respondents 3 and 4. During
the course of arguments, the learned Standing Counsel for
Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd. pointed out that SLP(C)No.17263 of 2025
filed by the petitioners in R.P.No.797 of 2025 against the judgment
of this Court dated 24.06.2025 in W.A.No.484 of 2025 ended in
dismissal by the order of the Apex Court dated 09.07.2025.
6. The grounds raised by the review petitioners in
R.P.No.797 of 2025 for seeking review of the judgment of this
Court dated 24.06.2025 in W.A.No.484 of 2025 read thus;
"A. The impugned judgement suffers from factual and legal
errors apparent on the face of the judgement, that a review
of the same is warranted.
B. As per the interpretative rule of plain and literal
interpretation, Ext.P2/notification does not permit this
Hon'ble Court's interpretation that only if the MSME-
borrower brings it to the notice of the creditor, prior to the
classification of its account/s as an NPA, that it is an MSME
entitled to the benefits of Ext.P2/notification, the MSME-
borrower can rely on Ext.P2, or that Ext.P2 does not have
2025:KER:55272
applicability if the MSME-borrower does not bring to the
notice of the secured creditor of its MSME-status.
C. Ext.P2 mandates the secured creditor, de hors any action
on the part of the MSME-borrower, to identify and assuage
incipient stress faced by MSME-borrowers, and assuage it
by various measures including restructuring, additional
finance, revival etc.
D. This Hon'ble Court failed to consider and apply the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Pro Knits
vs. The Board of Directors of Canara Bank and Others, 2024
SCC OnLine SC 1864, in its proper perspective. It was laid
down therein that the procedure prescribed in Ext.
P2/notification is mandatory and ought to be complied with
by creditor before any initiation of recovery proceedings
against MSME-borrowers.
E. Ther is no estoppel against a statute, and the petitioners
cannot be barred from relying on Ext.P2/statutory
notification mandating a procedure to be followed before
initiating recovery measures against an MSME-borrower.
F. This Hon'ble Court is vested with jurisdiction to entertain
all cases involving violation of statutory provision, inspite of
the availability of a statutory remedy against the secured
creditor.
G. The findings of this Hon'ble Court reduce Ext.P2 to
redundancy, defeating the object of the MSMED Act, 2006.
In addition to directing banks and other creditors to follow
the procedure laid down as regards stressed MSME
borrowers, Ext. P2 also permits MSME-borrowers to apply to
2025:KER:55272
the banks for the benefit of the notification."
The very same grounds are raised in R.P.No.799 of 2025 filed by
the review petitioners seeking review of the judgment of this Court
dated 24.06.2025 in W.A.No.481 of 2025.
7. Relying on the decision of a Constitution Bench of the
Apex Court in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak [(1988) 2 SCC 602],
the learned counsel for the review petitioners would contend that
in rectifying the error, no procedural inhibitions should debar the
Court because it is a well settled principle that no person should
suffer by reason of any mistake of the Court. If an order is
irregular, it can be set aside by the court that made it, on an
application being made to that court either under rules of the court
dealing expressly with setting aside orders for irregularity or ex
debito justitiae, if the circumstances warranted, namely, where
there was a breach of rules of natural justice, etc.
8. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Canara
Bank v. N.G. Subbaraya Setty [(2018) 16 SCC 228], the
learned counsel for the review petitioners would contend that an
issue of law which arises between the same parties in a
subsequent suit or proceeding is not res judicata, if by an
2025:KER:55272
erroneous decision given on a statutory prohibition in a former suit
or proceeding, the statutory prohibition is given effect to. In such
cases, the rights of the parties are not the only matter for
consideration, as in the case of an erroneous interpretation of a
statute inter partes, as the public policy contained in the statutory
prohibition cannot be set at naught.
9. The learned Standing Counsel for Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd.
for respondents 3 and 4 would contend that the grounds raised in
these review petitions would make it explicitly clear that the
review petitions are appeals in disguise. If the view adopted by
this Court in the judgment sought to be reviewed is a possible
view, it cannot be contended that there is error apparent on the
face of record, warranting interference in exercise of the power of
review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908.
10. In paragraph 9 of the common judgment dated
24.06.2025 in W.A.Nos.481 of 2025 and 484 of 2025, this Court
has referred to the findings of the learned Single Judge in the
common judgment dated 11.03.2025 in W.P.(C)Nos.45166 of
2025:KER:55272
2024 and 46514 of 2024. Paragraph 9 of the common judgment
dated 24.06.2025 reads thus;
"9. After considering the rival contentions, the learned
Single Judge, by a common judgment dated 11.03.2025,
dismissed W.P.(C)Nos.45166 of 2024 and 46514 of 2024 on
the ground that the writ petitioners have not made out any
case for the grant of the reliefs sought for in the writ
petitions. Identical issues have already been considered in
the judgment dated 17.02.2025 in W.P.(C)No.45285 of
2024. As discernible from the common judgment dated
11.03.2025 in W.P.(C)Nos.45166 of 2024 and 46514 of
2024, before the learned Single Judge, it was not disputed
that the claims presently raised have not been raised in any
previous litigations and they have been raised for the first
time only after the accounts have been classified as NPA.
[see: para.8, Page 19 of the judgment] Therefore, the
learned Single Judge found that in the light of the law laid
down by the Apex Court in Pro Knits v. Canara Bank
[(2024) 10 SCC 292] and by a Division Bench of this Court
in P.K. Krishnakumar v. IndusInd Bank [2024 SCC
OnLine Ker 6888] the writ petitioners are not entitled to
any relief. The law laid down by the Apex Court in Pro Knits
[(2024) 10 SCC 292] is binding on the High Court in terms
of the provisions contained in Article 141 of the Constitution
of India, and the law laid down by the Division Bench of this
Court in P.K. Krishnakumar [2024 SCC OnLine Ker
6888] is also binding on the learned Single Judge, as held
2025:KER:55272
by a Full Bench of this Court in Raman Gopi v. Kunju
Raman Uthaman [2011 (4) KLT 458]. The learned
Single Judge found that the writ petitioners cannot have the
luxury of conducting piecemeal litigations where issues are
deliberately fragmented across separate proceedings to gain
an unfair advantage, as held by the Apex Court in Celir LLP
v. Sumati Prasad Bafna [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3727].
The writ petitioners, who are the borrowers, have pursued
various proceedings before this Court, the Bombay High
Court, and the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The learned Single
Judge noticed that the writ petitioners/borrowers do not
appear to have raised any claim for the benefit of the
Exts.P2 framework and Ext.P3 guidelines issued by the
Reserve Bank of India [in W.P.(C)No.46514 of 2024] at any
earlier stage before this Court. The learned Single Judge
noticed further that Ext.R2(a) communication dated
28.01.2025 produced along with the statement filed by the
learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent Bank in
W.P.(C)No.45166 of 2024 indicates that the Bank had
actually informed the writ petitioners that their accounts are
in Special Mention Account (SMA) category and called upon
them to submit proposals. However, no proposals were
submitted by the writ petitioners. At least, when the writ
petitioners had received Ext.R2(a), they should have sought
a reference to the committee constituted in terms of Ext.P2.
In Abdul Nazer v. Union Bank of India [2023 (5) KHC
543], a learned Single Judge of this Court held that, on a
reading of clause (1) of the Framework issued under the
2025:KER:55272
MSME Act, it can be seen that it is only an optional
framework available to the bank and the borrower. The said
framework in the notification cannot prevail over the
statutory provisions of the SARFAESI Act in the matter of
recovery of loans. As per Section 24 of the MSME Act, only
the provisions of Sections 15 to 23 are given precedence
over other laws. Section 9 or the notifications issued
thereunder cannot prevail over the statutory provisions of
the SARFAESI Act. In the decision of the Apex Court in
Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. Girnar Corrugators
(P) Ltd. [(2023) 3 SCC 210], it has been held that the
SARFAESI Act will prevail over the MSME Act. In the
impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge noticed that
Ext.P2 notification in W.P.(C)No. 46514 of 2024 has been
issued in the exercise of the power conferred by Section 9
of the MSMED Act. Therefore, the learned Single Judge
agreed with the view expressed by the learned judge in
Abdul Nazer [2023 (5) KHC 543]. The learned Single
Judge noticed further that Ext.P3 guidelines in
W.P.(C)No.46514 of 2024 issued by the Reserve Bank of
India provide that restructuring of loan accounts with
exposure of above Rs.25 Crore will continue to be governed
by the extant guidelines on Corporate Debt Restructuring
(CDR)/Joint Lender's Forum (JLF) mechanism. It is not
disputed that the liability in the loan accounts, which are the
subject matter of W.P.(C)No.46514 of 2024, are in excess of
Rs.25 crore. Therefore, the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.46514
of 2024 are not entitled to the benefit of Exts.P2 and P3. For
2025:KER:55272
all these reasons, the learned Single Judge found that the
writ petitioners are not entitled to any relief in the writ
petitions. The learned Single Judge also found that the
question of issuing notice to the Reserve Bank of India and
the Union of India in the Ministry of Micro, Small, and
Medium Enterprises does not arise as, on the facts of the
cases, the legal issue stands covered against the writ
petitioners, as already noticed above. Therefore, the writ
petitions were dismissed by the impugned common
judgment.
11. In paragraph 16 of the common judgment dated
24.06.2025 in W.A.Nos.481 of 2025 and 484 of 2025, this Court
quoted paragraphs 3 and 4 of the judgment dated 11.03.2025 of
the learned Single Judge, in which the learned Single Judge has
referred to the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for
the petitioners in W.P.(C)Nos.45166 of 2024 and 46514 of 2024.
In paragraph 17 of the common judgment dated 24.06.2025, this
Court quoted paragraphs 5 and 6 of the judgment dated
11.03.2025 of the learned Single Judge, in which the learned
Single Judge has referred to the contentions advanced by the
learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent Bank.
12. In paragraph 18 of the common judgment dated
24.06.2025 in W.A.Nos.481 of 2025 and 484 of 2025, this Court
2025:KER:55272
noticed that a reading of the impugned judgment dated
11.03.2025 of the learned Single Judge would show that though
various reliefs including declaratory reliefs were sought for in the
writ petitions, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for
the writ petitioners were confined to the contentions referred to
in paragraphs 3 and 4 of that judgment. The learned Single Judge
considered the said contentions with reference to the rival
contentions raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd
respondent Bank, which were noted in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the
impugned judgment, and dismissed the writ petitions, after taking
note of the law laid down in the decisions referred to therein.
13. On the facts of the cases at hand, in paragraph 19 of
the common judgment dated 24.06.2025 in W.A.Nos.481 of 2025
and 484 of 2025, this Court noticed as follows;
"19. As already noticed hereinbefore, in W.P.(C)No.45166 of
2024, the document marked as Ext.P7 is a notice dated
16.08.2023 issued to the appellants and two others, by the
4th respondent Authorised Officer of the 3rd respondent
Bank, invoking the provisions under Section 13(2) of the
SARFAESI Act in respect of the credit facilities availed by the
appellants, wherein it is stated that due to the default in
repayment of the secured loan/financial assistance in
2025:KER:55272
violation of the stipulations in the sanction terms, loan
agreements and security documents, the Bank has classified
the said accounts as Non-Performing Asset (NPA), as
defined in clause (o) of Section 2 of the SARFAESI Act, with
effect from 31.07.2023. Ext.P8 is a copy of the objection
dated 11.10.2023 of the 1st appellant, under Section 13(3A)
of the SARFAESI Act, to Ext.P7 notice dated 16.08.2023 of
the 4th respondent Authorised Officer, wherein it is stated
that the classification of the accounts as NPA, with effect
from 31.07.2023, violates Ext.P5 notification dated
29.05.2015 issued by the 5th respondent Ministry under
Section 9 of MSMED Act and Ext.P6 notification dated
17.03.2016 issued by the 1st respondent Reserve Bank of
India. The 4th respondent received Ext.P8 objection on
16.10.2023, to which Ext.P9 reply dated 18.10.2023 was
issued, pointing out that the credit facilities availed by the
appellants have already been classified as NPA as on
16.08.2023, by allowing 60 days' time to close the accounts.
Ext.P8 objection is only to protract the recovery proceedings
initiated by the Bank. On receipt of Ext.P9 reply, the 1 st
appellant submitted Ext.P10 representation dated
25.10.2023. Similarly, in W.P.(C)No.46514 of 2024 the
document marked as Ext.P4 is a notice dated 16.08.2023
issued to the appellants and two others, by the 4 th
respondent Authorised Officer of the 3rd respondent Bank,
invoking the provisions under Section 13(2) of the
SARFAESI Act in respect of the credit facilities availed by the
appellants, wherein it is stated that due to the default in
2025:KER:55272
repayment of the secured loan/financial assistance in
violation of the stipulations in the sanction terms, loan
agreements and security documents, the Bank has classified
the said accounts as Non-Performing Asset (NPA), as
defined in clause (o) of Section 2 of the SARFAESI Act, with
effect from 31.07.2023. Ext.P5 is a copy of the objection
dated 11.10.2023 of the 1st appellant, under Section 13(3A)
of the SARFAESI Act, to Ext.P4 notice dated 16.08.2023 of
the 4th respondent Authorised Officer, wherein it is stated
that the classification of the accounts as NPA, with effect
from 31.07.2023, violates Ext.P2 notification dated
29.05.2015 issued by the 5th respondent Ministry under
Section 9 of MSMED Act and Ext.P3 notification dated
17.03.2016 issued by the 1st respondent Reserve Bank of
India. The 4th respondent received Ext.P5 objection on
16.10.2023, to which Ext.P6 reply dated 18.10.2023 was
issued, pointing out that the credit facilities availed by the
appellants have already been classified as NPA as on
16.08.2023, by allowing 60 days' time to close the accounts.
Ext.P8 objection is only to protract the recovery proceedings
initiated by the Bank. On receipt of Ext.P6 reply, the 1 st
appellant submitted Ext.P7 representation dated
25.10.2023. In the impugned judgment, the learned Single
Judge noticed that Ext.R2(a) communication dated
28.01.2025 produced along with the statement filed by the
learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent Bank in
W.P.(C)No.45166 of 2024 indicates that the Bank had
actually informed the writ petitioners that their accounts are
2025:KER:55272
in Special Mention Account (SMA) category and called upon
them to submit proposals. However, no proposals were
submitted by the writ petitioners."
14. In the common judgment dated 24.06.2025 in
W.A.Nos.481 of 2025 and 484 of 2025, this Court held that in view
of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Pro Knits v. Canara
Bank [(2024) 10 SCC 292] and that laid down by the Division
Bench of this Court in P.K. Krishnakumar v. IndusInd Bank
[2024 SCC OnLine Ker 6888] if, at the stage of classification of
the loan accounts as NPA, the writ petitioners-borrowers do not
bring to the notice of the Bank that it is an MSME and allowed the
proceedings under the SARFAESI Act to go through, then they will
be precluded from raising it at the belated stage. Paragraphs 25
to 28 of the common judgment dated 24.06.2025 read thus;
"25. In Pro Knits [(2024) 10 SCC 292] the Apex Court
found that the framework for Revival and Rehabilitation of
MSMEs also enables the Micro, Small or Medium Enterprise
to voluntarily initiate the proceedings under the said
framework, by filing an application along with the affidavit
of an authorised person. Therefore, the stage of
identification of incipient stress in the loan account of
MSMEs and categorisation under the Special Mention
Account category, before the loan account of MSME turns
2025:KER:55272
into Non-Performing Asset is a very crucial stage, and
therefore it would be incumbent on the part of the MSME
concerned also to produce authenticated and verifiable
documents/material for substantiating its claim of being
MSME, before its account is classified as Non-Performing
Asset. If that is not done, and once the account is classified
as a Non-Performing Asset, the banks, i.e., the secured
creditors, would be entitled to take recourse to Chapter III
of the SARFAESI Act for the enforcement of the security
interest. If at the stage of classification of the loan account
of the borrower as Non-Performing Asset, the borrower does
not bring to the notice of the bank/creditor concerned that
it is a Micro, Small or Medium Enterprise under the MSMED
Act and if such an enterprise allows the entire process for
enforcement of security interest under the SARFAESI Act to
be over, or it having challenged such action of the
bank/creditor concerned in the court of law/tribunal and
having failed, such an enterprise could not be permitted to
misuse the process of law for thwarting the actions taken
under the SARFAESI Act by raising the plea of being an
MSME at a belated stage.
26. In P.K. Krishnakumar [2024 SCC OnLine Ker
6888], the specific contention raised before the Division
Bench was that, though it is correct that the appellants have
not raised the ground of the enterprise being an MSME at
an early stage and in the earlier round of writ petitions, the
appellants cannot be estopped from raising legal
contentions which go to the root of the case. In paragraph
2025:KER:55272
14 of the judgment, the Division Bench extracted
paragraphs 16 and 17 of the decision of the Apex Court in
Pro Knits [(2024) 10 SCC 292] and stated in categorical
terms that the dicta laid down by the Apex Court is that if,
at the stage of classification of the loan account, the
borrower does not bring to the notice of the Bank that it is
an MSME and allow the entire process to go through, then it
will be precluded from raising it at the belated stage. In the
said decision, the Division Bench found that the argument
of the appellants that the High Court must intervene, no
matter how they conducted themselves, proceeds on a
complete misunderstanding of the nature of the writ
jurisdiction.
27. In the instant case, as stated in the notices dated
16.08.2023 issued by the authorised officer of the 3rd
respondent Bank, which are marked as Ext.P7 in
W.P.(C)No.45166 of 2024 and Ext.P4 in W.P.(C)No.46514 of
2024, the borrowers and guarantors of the respective loan
accounts were informed that the Bank has classified the said
accounts as NPA, with effect from 31.07.2023. In the
objection dated 11.10.2023 of the respective borrowers to
the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act,
which are marked as Ext.P8 in W.P.(C)No.45166 of 2024 and
Ext.P5 in W.P.(C)No.46514 of 2024, it was pointed out that
the classification of the loan accounts as NPA, with effect
from 31.07.2023 violates Ext.P5 notification dated
29.05.2015 issued by the 5th respondent Ministry under
Section 9 of MSMED Act and Ext.P6 notification dated
2025:KER:55272
17.03.2016 issued by the 1st respondent Reserve Bank of
India. In paragraph 8 at page 19 of the impugned judgment
dated 11.03.2025, the learned Single Judge noticed that it
was not disputed that the claims presently raised have not
been raised in any previous litigations and they have been
raised for the first time only after the accounts have been
classified as NPA.
28. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Pro
Knits [(2024) 10 SCC 292] and that laid down by the
Division Bench of this Court in P.K. Krishnakumar [2024
SCC OnLine Ker 6888] if, at the stage of classification of
the loan accounts as NPA, the writ petitioners-borrowers do
not bring to the notice of the Bank that it is an MSME and
allowed the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act to go
through, then they will be precluded from raising it at the
belated stage. The learned Single Judge, after taking note
of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra,
arrived at a conclusion that the writ petitioners-borrowers
are not entitled to raise the plea of being an MSME at a
belated stage, having failed to bring to the notice of the 3 rd
respondent Bank that it is an MSME before classification of
the loan accounts as NPA."
15. In the common judgment dated 24.06.2025 in
W.A.Nos.481 of 2025 and 484 of 2025, this Court has also referred
to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Kotak Mahindra Bank
Ltd. v. Girnar Corrugators (P) Ltd. [(2023) 3 SCC 210] and
South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew Philip [2023 SCC
2025:KER:55272
online (SC) 435] on the maintainability of a writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, instead of approaching the
Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. In
paragraph 33 of the common judgment dated 24.06.2025, this
Court noticed that the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.46514 of 2024
challenged the classification of the accounts as NPA, by filing
W.P.(C)No.38732 of 2023. This Court, by Ext.P14 judgment dated
27.11.2023 closed the said writ petition, by relegating them to
invoke the remedy provided before the statutory forum.
Thereafter, the 1st petitioner in W.P.(C)No.46514 of 2024 -
M/s.M.D. Esthappan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. - filed W.P.(C)No.
22424 of 2024, when recovery steps were taken against the
secured assets. In that writ petition, this Court found that no relief
can be granted to the writ petitioner and the same was disposed
of by relegating the writ petitioner to avail the statutory remedy
provided before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The writ petitioners
in W.P.(C)No.46514 of 2024 challenged the proceedings initiated
by the 3rd respondent Bank under the provisions of the SARFAESI
Act, by filing a Securitisation Application before the Debts
Recovery Tribunal-1, Ernakulam, as S.A.No.776 of 2023. The said
2025:KER:55272
Securitisation Application was dismissed as withdrawn on
12.02.2025, with liberty to file fresh Securitisation Application on
the same cause of action, based on a memo filed by the learned
counsel for the applicants that the applicants have approached the
civil court and the High Court invoking their statutory remedy.
16. In the common judgment dated 24.06.2025 in
W.A.Nos.481 of 2025 and 484 of 2025, this Court found that the
learned Single Judge, after considering the rival contentions raised
at the Bar, found that W.P.(C)Nos.45166 of 2024 and 46514 of
2024 are liable to be dismissed. For the reasons stated in the
judgment sought to be reviewed, this Court found that, the
learned Single Judge cannot be found fault with in not entertaining
the writ petitions, for the reasons stated in the common judgment
dated 11.03.2025.
17. On the scope of the power of review under Order XLVII
Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Apex Court in
Thungabhadra Industries Ltd v. Government of Andhra
Pradesh [AIR 1964 SC 1372] held that review is, by no means
an appeal in disguise, whereby an erroneous decision is reheard
and corrected, but lies only for correcting patent errors. In
2025:KER:55272
Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi
[(1980) 2 SCC 167] the Apex Court held that, if the view
adopted by the court in the original judgment is a possible view,
having regard to what the record states; it is difficult to hold that
there is error apparent on the face of the record. In Parsion Devi
v. Sumitri Devi [(1997) 8 SCC 715] the Apex Court held that,
a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake
or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is
not self evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning,
can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record
justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order
XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code. In exercise of the review jurisdiction, it
is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be 'reheard and
corrected'. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be
allowed to be 'an appeal in disguise'.
18. In Lily Thomas v. Union of India [(2006) 3 SCC
224] the Apex Court reiterated that, the power of review can be
exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view.
The review cannot be treated like 'an appeal in disguise'. The mere
possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review.
2025:KER:55272
In Anantha Reddy N. v. Anshu Kathuria [(2013) 15 SCC
534] the Apex Court held that the review jurisdiction is extremely
limited and unless there is mistake apparent on the face of the
record, the judgment does not call for review. The mistake
apparent on record means that the mistake is self-evident, needs
no search and stares at its face. Surely, review jurisdiction is not
'an appeal in disguise'. The review does not permit rehearing of
the matter on merits.
19. Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decisions
referred to supra, none of the grounds raised in these review
petitions, which we have extracted hereinbefore at paragraph 6,
would fall within the purview of review jurisdiction under Order
XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The judgment
sought to be reviewed is one rendered after taking note of the
rival contentions on the law laid down by the Apex Court in Pro
Knits [(2024) 10 SCC 292] and that laid down by the Division
Bench of this Court in P.K. Krishnakumar [2024 SCC OnLine
Ker 6888]. There is no error apparent on the face of record,
warranting an interference in exercise of the review jurisdiction
under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code.
2025:KER:55272
In the above circumstances, these review petitions fail and
they are accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
MIN
