Kerala High Court
M/S. Sark Spice Products Pvt. Ltd vs Reserve Bank Of India on 17 October, 2025
2025:KER:76031
RP NO.860 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 25TH ASWINA, 1947
RP NO. 860 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.11.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.30885 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS:
1 M/S.SARK SPICE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HAVING ITS
REGISTERED ADDRESS AT TAK INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, EARA
NORTH, NEELAMPEROOR, ALAPPUZHA,
PIN - 686534
2 ABRAHAM T. KURUVILA @ T.A. KURUVILA
AGED 72 YEARS
S/O. LATE T.C. ABRAHAM, CHAIRMAN & MANAGING
DIRECTOR, SARK SPICE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,
THURUTHITHARA HOUSE, EARA NORTH P.O.,
NEELAMPEROOR, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA,
PIN - 686534
BY ADVS.
SMT. MARIA NEDUMPARA
SRI.MATHEW NEDUMPARA
SHRI.SHAMEEM FAYIZ V.P.
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
1 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS GOVERNOR SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH
ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI, PIN - 400001
2025:KER:76031
RP NO.860 OF 2025
2
2 BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SOUTH INDIAN BANK
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO & MANAGING DIRECTOR,
REGISTERED OFFICE, SIB HOUSE, T.B. ROAD MISSION
QUARTERS, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680001
3 THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO & MANAGING DIRECTOR, SIB
HOUSE, T.B. ROAD, MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR,
KERALA, PIN - 680001
4 AUTHORISED OFFICER & CHIEF MANAGER,
SOUTH INDIAN BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM, 1ST
FLOOR, REGENCY SQUARE, K.K ROAD, COLLECTORATE
P.O., KOTTAYAM, KERALA,, PIN - 686002
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
BY ADVS.
SHRI.SUNIL SHANKER, SC
O.M.SHALINA, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
SRI.SREEJITH V.S, GP
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
17.09.2025, AND THE COURT ON 17.10.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:76031
RP NO.860 OF 2025
3
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.
............................................................
RP No.860 of 2025
.............................................................
Dated this the 17th day of October, 2025
ORDER
This review is filed against the judgment dated 22.11.2024 in
WP(C) No.30885 of 2024.
2. The said writ petition was filed claiming that the petitioners,
being a registered Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise (hereinafter MSME)
under Udyam Registration, were entitled to the protection of the revival
and rehabilitation framework notified by the Central Government
through Notification dated 29.05.2015 under Section 9 of the MSMED Act
and made binding on banks by RBI Circular dated 17.03.2016. It was their
case that, despite being eligible under the statutory framework, the
respondent bank illegally classified their account as a Non-Performing
Asset (hereinafter NPA) and proceeded under the SARFAESI Act by issuing
demand, possession, and sale notices without first referring the matter to
2025:KER:76031
RP NO.860 OF 2025
the Committee for stressed MSMEs for corrective measures as mandated.
They contended that the said framework, having statutory force, required
a three-stage process of rectification, restructuring, and recovery only
thereafter, which the Bank failed to follow.
3. The petitioners further relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Pro Knits v. The Board of Directors of Canara Bank
[(2024) 10 SCC 292] to contend that once MSME status exists before NPA
classification, the bank is duty-bound to explore corrective steps under
the statutory mechanism before initiating coercive recovery, and that
denial of such statutory protection rendered the entire proceedings void
ab initio.
4. Dealing with the above contention and rejecting the same,
this Court, by the judgment under review, held as follows;
"25. The Supreme Court, in its judgment in M/s PRO
KNITS v. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF CANARA
BANK & ORS [Civil Appeal No. 8332 of 2024 dated
01.08.2024], had held that an MSMEs' loan account,
under the instructions contained in the notification
dated 29.052015 r/w the directions issued by the RBI
vide the notification dated 17.03.2016 referred to
above, the Bank or the creditors are required to
identify the incipient stress in the account of the
MSMEs, before the loan account turned into NPA. The
2025:KER:76031
RP NO.860 OF 2025
framework under the aforesaid two notifications
enables such an MSME to voluntarily initiate the
proceedings under the said framework by filing an
application along with the affidavit of an authorised
person. Therefore, at the stage of identification of
incipient stress in the loan account of MSME, it would
be incumbent on the part of the concerned MSME to
produce authenticated and verifiable
documents/material for substantiating its claim of
being MSME, before its account is classified as NPA. If
the MSME does not bring it to the notice of the
concerned Bank/creditor that it is a Micro, Small or
Medium Enterprise under the MSMED Act, and if such
an enterprise allows the entire process of enforcement
of security interest under the SARFAESI Act to be over,
the challenge to such action of the concerned
Bank/creditor in the court of law/tribunal having
failed, such enterprises cannot 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.From the facts stated above, it is evident that the
petitioners have filed one after another petition before
this court and did not comply with the interim
order/final order and their own undertakings. The
petitioners never raised the issue of the petitioners
being MSME and allowed the process under the
SARFAESI Act to take place without taking such a plea
in the first instance. The petitioners had not disclosed
the filing of the aforesaid writ petitions, and they have
suppressed the material facts from this court. This
Court exercises equity jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India and to invoke the equity
jurisdiction, the petitioners are required to approach
this court with clean hands. When the petitioners have
suppressed the material facts from this Court and have
2025:KER:76031
RP NO.860 OF 2025
filed one after another petition without any intent to
comply with the orders and undertakings, I am of the
opinion that the present writ petition is nothing but a
gross abuse of the process of the court. Therefore, the
present writ petition is dismissed with a cost of
Rs.25,000/- to be deposited in the Chief Minister's
Distress Relief Fund (CMDRF) within a period of seven
days from today, failing which, the District Collector
Ernakulam, will make recovery from the petitioners as
arrears of land revenue under the Kerala Revenue
Recovery Act."
5. The above order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court by filing SLP No.29301 of 2025, which was dismissed on 28.04.2025.
Thereafter, this Review Petition was filed on 02.07.2025 with a delay of
197 days. It is relevant to note that while dismissing the Special Leave
Petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recorded that the petitioners
were heard at length and that the court was not inclined to interfere with
the impugned judgment. After the judgment under review passed on
22.11.2024, the same petitioner had filed WP(C) No.42050, and WP(C) No.
42317/2024 in which a common judgment was passed on 28.07.2025,
holding that even on merits, the contention of the petitioners that their
MSME registration, obtained prior to the NPA classification, automatically
entitles them to protection under the RBI Notification dated 29.05.2015, is
legally untenable. This finding was based on the judgment of the Hon'ble
2025:KER:76031
RP NO.860 OF 2025
Supreme Court in M/S Pro Knits (supra).
6. It is pertinent to note that no appeal has been filed against
the judgment in WP(C) No.42050 of 2024 and connected matters dated
28.07.2025. The judgment in WP(C) No.42050 of 2024 clearly found that
the petitioner was raising the very same contention raised unsuccessfully
in WP(C) No.30885 of 2024, the judgment under review. Thus, having
unsuccessfully challenged the judgment in WP(C) No.30885 of 2024 before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court and having suffered the judgments in WP(C)
No.42050 of 2024 and connected cases filed by the same petitioner, the
above Review Petition cannot be entertained at all.
7. It is profitable to refer to the following judgments of the
Supreme Court in Malleeswari v. K. Suguna and Ors.
[MANU/SC/1240/2025], which laid down the following principles:
"16. To wit, through a review application, an apparent
error of fact or law is intimated to the court, but no
extra reasoning is undertaken to explain the said
error. The intimation of error at the first blush
enables the court to correct apparent errors instead of
the higher court correcting such errors. At both the
above stages, detailed reasoning is not warranted.
17. Having noticed the distinction between the power
of review and appellate power, we restate the power
2025:KER:76031
RP NO.860 OF 2025
and scope of review jurisdiction. Review grounds are
summed up as follows:
17.1 The ground of discovery of new and important
matter or evidence is a ground available if it is
demonstrated that, despite the exercise of due
diligence, this evidence was not within their
knowledge or could not be produced by the party at
the time, the original decree or order was passed.
17.2 Mistake or error apparent on the face of the
record may be invoked if there is something more than
a mere error, and it must be the one which is manifest
on the face of the record. Such an error is a patent
error and not a mere wrong decision. An error which
has to be established by a long-drawn process of
reasoning on points where there may conceivably be
two opinions, can hardly be said to be an error
apparent on the face of the record.
17.3 Lastly, the phrase 'for any other sufficient reason'
means a reason that is sufficient on grounds at least
analogous to those specified in the other two
categories,
18. Courts ought not mix up or overlap one jurisdiction
with another jurisdiction. Having noted the appellate
and review jurisdiction of the Court, we will apply
these principles to the impugned order to determine
whether the High Court was within its power of review
jurisdiction or had exceeded it by reversing the
findings, as if the High Court were sitting in appeal
against the order dated 23.09.2022. We appreciate the
above tabulated summary of the view taken in the
impugned order while doing so."
2025:KER:76031
RP NO.860 OF 2025
8. Northern India Caters (India) Ltd v. Lt. Governor
of Delhi (1980 2 SCC 167)
"8. It is well-settled that a party is not entitled to seek a
review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for
the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the
case. The normal principle is that a judgment
pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from
that principle is justified only when circumstances of a
substantial and compelling character make it
necessary to do so [Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan;
AIR 1965 SC 845]. For instance, if the attention of the
Court is not drawn to a material statutory provision
during the original hearing, the Court will review its
judgment [G.L. Gupta v. D.N. Mehta; (1971) 3 SCC 189].
The Court may also reopen its judgment if a manifest
wrong has been done and it is necessary to pass an
order to do full and effective justice [O.N. Mohindroo v.
Distt. Judge, Delhi, (1971) 3 SCC 5].
9. It is also relevant to note that the reasons stated for
condonation of the delay in filing the review petition cannot be accepted,
as the petitioners had filed cases even after dismissal of the judgment
under review, and therefore, there is no merit in the delay condonation
petition as well, as no sufficient cause is shown to condone the delay in
filing the review petition.
2025:KER:76031
RP NO.860 OF 2025
Given the above, the Review Petition fails and is dismissed.
SD/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
JUDGE
JJ
2025:KER:76031
RP NO.860 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 25/07/2019
BY THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK, CHINGAVANAM
BRANCH
Annexure A2 THE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 02/06/2020
BY THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK, CHINGAVANAM
BRANCH
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure A True copy of the order dated 28.04.2025
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP
