[Cites 18, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
M/S. Genuine Agro Spices vs The Board Of Directors Of Bank Of ... on 16 January, 2026
2026:KER:3869
WPC 41907/2025
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 26TH POUSHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 41907 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:
1 M/S. GENUINE AGRO SPICES,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,IV/139,PAZHAMTHOTTAM,
PATTIMATTOM P.O.,ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 683565
2 JINU VARGHESE,
AGED 46 YEARS
MANAGING PARTNER, M/S. GENUINE AGRO SPICES, KANJIRVELIL HOUSE,
PAZHAMTHOTTAM P.O, PAZHAMTHOTTAM, ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 683565
3 MEREENA JINU,
AGED 38 YEARS
PARTNER, M/S. GENUINE AGRO SPICES, KANJIRVELIL HOUSE,
PAZHAMTHOTTAM P.O, PAZHAMTHOTTAM, ERNAKULAM,
KERALA, PIN - 683565
BY ADVS.
SMT. MARIA NEDUMPARA
SHRI.SHAMEEM FAYIZ V.P.
SHRI.ROY PALLIKOODAM
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF BANK OF MAHARASHTRA LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO & MANAGING DIRECTOR,LOK MANGAL, 1501,
SHIVAJI NAGAR, PUNE, PIN - 411001
2 THE BANK OF MAHARASHTRA LTD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,LOK MANGAL, 1501, SHIVAJI NAGAR, PUNE,
PIN - 411001
3 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
BANK OF MAHARASHTRA, ZONAL OFFICE-ERNAKULAM, 2ND FLOOR, G.K. ARCADE,
PALARIVATTOM BYPASS JN., VENNALA P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682028
2026:KER:3869
WPC 41907/2025
-2-
4 MINISTRY OF MICRO SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,UDYOG BHAWAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI,
PIN - 110001
5 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GOVERNOR,NEW CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING,
SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI, PIN - 400001
6 STATE OF KERALA ,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
7 GENERAL MANAGER,
DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, ERNAKULAM. KAKKANAD, PIN - 682030
8 CHAIRMAN,
MICRO AND SMALL ENTERPRISE FACILITATION COUNCIL (MSEFC),
DIRECTORATE OF INDUSTRIES COMMERCE, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695033
9 CHAIRMAN,
STATE LEVEL INTER-INSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE,REGIONAL OFFICE,
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, BAKERY JUNCTION, P.B. NO. 6507,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
10 ASLAM SALIM,
ADVOCATE COURT COMMISSIONER APPOINTED IN CRL. MP.9374/2025,
IN THE FILES OF CJM THRISSUR, THRISSUR BAR ASSOCIATION, KALYAN NAGAR,
AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003
11 THE SENIOR INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
THRISSUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR, PIN - 680001
12 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR INDIA,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL
AFFAIRS,MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE,SHASTRI BHAVAN,
DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
13 THE CHAIRMAN,
STATE BANK OF INDIA,STATE BANK BHAWAN, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI,
PIN - 400021
14 ANIL DHIRAJLAL AMBANI,
SEA WIND, CUFFE PARADE, MUMBAI, PIN - 400005
2026:KER:3869
WPC 41907/2025
-3-
15 MUKESH DHIRAJLAL AMBANI,
ANTILLA, ALTAMOUNT ROAD, CUMBALLA HILL, MUMBAI, PIN - 400036
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.A.PRAKASH
SHRI.M.JAYAKRISHNAN, CGC
SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
SMT.S.AGILA
OTHER PRESENT
SRI. MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA FOR PETITIONER
SRI. T.A PRAKASH, SC FOR R1 TO R3
SRI.M.JAYAKRISHNAN, FOR R4.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:3869
WPC 41907/2025
-4-
JUDGMENT
(Dated this the 16th day of January 2026)
The 1st Petitioner, established in 2017, is a registered Medium
MSME enterprise engaged in the trading of agricultural produce,
including exports. The 2nd and 3rd petitioners are the partners of the 1st
Petitioner Firm. The 1st Respondent is the Board of Directors,
represented by its chairman, and the 3rd respondent is the Authorized
Officer of the 2nd respondent bank. Petitioners availed credit facilities
to the tune of Rs. 30 crores from Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and the said
loan facilities were fully secured by mortgaging various collateral
securities.
2. It is the case of the Petitioners that their business
encountered significant financial stress due to external factors, which
led to defaults on their repayment obligations. However, despite the
Petitioners' request seeking benefits under the MSMED Act,2006, the
Bank denied their requests for rehabilitation and restructuring and
2026:KER:3869
bypassed these protective measures by initiating coercive recovery
proceedings against the firm.
3. Subsequently, instead of referring the 1st petitioner
firm to the Committee of stressed MSME's to enable them to avail the
opportunity of rehabilitation as per the scheme under the MSMED Act,
the Respondents issued Ext P14 demand notice dated 24.04.2025 under
Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, seeking a repayment of Rs.
30,77,13,032.35/-. The 2nd petitioner sent an email on 28.07.2025 to the
Bank attaching two documents; one of the documents is issued by the
MSME - DEVELOPMENT AND FACILITATION OFFICE dated 23.07.2025,
which is in respect of a company by the name Kanjiravelil Traders Pvt.
Ltd and others, which have nothing to do with the petitioner
enterprise herein. The second document annexed is a letter issued by
the SPICES BOARD dated 17.07.2025, which is also concerned with
Kanjiravelil Traders Pvt. Ltd and others, and not in respect of the
2026:KER:3869
petitioner. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioner enterprise has
not replied to the Section 13(2) notice issued by the Bank.
4. The Bank then issued a possession notice dated 16-07-
2025, u/s. 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Thereafter, the respondent
bank applied u/s. 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, to take physical
possession of the mortgaged properties, and the Advocate
Commissioner appointed by Order dated 19-09-2025 of the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur, has issued a notice dated 15-10-2025
informing of physical dispossession on 06-10-2025. Aggrieved by the
above scenario, the present petition stands filed.
5. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the
petitioners as well as the respondents.
6. According to the counsels for the petitioners, the
respondent Bank had acted in violation of the notification dated
29.05.2015, issued in exercise of the powers conferred under Sec.9 of
2026:KER:3869
the MSMED Act, 2006, by the Central Government and had initiated
recovery proceedings against the petitioners without even referring
them before the Committee constituted under the framework for
rehabilitation for availing benefits as contemplated in the said
notification, which is a nullity in the eyes of law. Hence, contended
that the entire proceedings done pursuant thereto are liable to be
quashed.
7. Further, they maintained that the judgments of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Pro Knits and Shri Shri Swami Samarth, having
been rendered per incuriam, are not at all binding on other courts and
tribunals. The counsel also challenged the institution of simultaneous
proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act with that of the suit
filed under the RDB Act.
8. As far as obtaining the protection conferred
under the revival framework of the MSMED Act is concerned, the
petitioners herein failed to adhere to the guidelines as held by the
2026:KER:3869
hon'ble Supreme Court in Pro Knits v. Canara Bank reported in
(2024) 10 SCC 292]. Relevant paragraphs of the above dictum read as
follows: -
"16. We may hasten to add that under the "Framework for Revival and
Rehabilitation of MSMEs", the banks or creditors are required to
identify the incipient stress in the account of the Micro, Small and
Medium Enterprises, before their accounts turn into non-performing
assets, by creating three sub-categories under the "Special Mention
Account" Category. However, while creating such sub-categories, the
Banks must have some authenticated and verifiable material with
them as produced by the concerned MSME to show that loan account
is of a Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise, classified and registered
as such under the MSMED Act. The said Framework 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 authorized person. Therefore, the stage of
identification of incipient stress in the loan account of MSMEs and
categorization under the Special Mention Account category, before the
loan account of MSME turns into NPA is a very crucial stage, and
therefore it would be incumbent on the part of the concerned MSME
also to produce authenticated and verifiable documents/material for
substantiating its claim of being MSME, before its account is classified
as NPA. If that is not done, and once the account is classified as NPA,
the banks i.e., secured creditors would be entitled to take the recourse
to Chapter III of the SARFAESI Act for enforcement of security interest.
17. It is also pertinent to note that sufficient safeguards have been
provided under the said Chapter for safeguarding the interest of the
Defaulters-Borrowers for giving them opportunities to discharge their
debt. However, if at the stage of classification of the loan account of
the borrower as NPA, the borrower does not bring to the notice of the
concerned bank/creditor that it is a Micro, Small or Medium
2026:KER:3869
Enterprise under the MSMED Act and if such an Enterprise allows the
entire process for enforcement of security interest under the SARFAES!
Act to be over, or it having challenged such action of the concerned
bank/creditor 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. Suffice it to say, when it is
mandatory or obligatory on the part of the Banks to follow the
Instructions/Directions issued by the Central Government and the
Reserve Bank of India with regard to the Framework for Revival and
Rehabilitation of MSMEs, it would be equally incumbent on the part of
the concerned MSMEs to be vigilant enough to follow the process laid
down under the said Framework, and bring to the notice of the
concerned Banks, by producing authenticated and verifiable
documents/material to show its eligibility to get the benefit of the said
Framework."
9. A Division Bench of this Court in P.K. Krishnakumar
v. IndusInd Bank, [2024 (6) KLT 606] clarified that the entitlement to
MSME benefits is not absolute but contingent upon timely disclosure.
This Court emphasized that an obligation is cast upon the MSME to
formally notify the bank of its status prior to the account being
classified as a Non-Performing Asset. Consequently, if an entity fails to
assert its MSME status before such classification is effected, it is
precluded from seeking the statutory benefits and protections
2026:KER:3869
attached thereto at a later stage. Relevant extract from the above
dictum is as follows: -
"19. XX xxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx
In cases where a borrower who qualifies as MSME does not initially raise
its status to challenge a bank's recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI
Act but instead participates fully in the process without objection, cannot
later use their MSME status to argue that the proceedings were without
jurisdiction. The power of the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is discretionary based on the principles of fairness
and justice, which include examining the conduct of the parties involved.
When the Appellants, by their actions, accepted the Bank's authority
without objection, the High Court will refuse to exercise its writ
jurisdiction to assist such Appellants, even if there are questions about the
jurisdiction of the Bank. This is because the Appellants' own conduct
disqualifies them from claiming such relief. When the High Court declines
to interfere in such circumstances, it does not mean that the Appellants'
waiver vested the Bank with jurisdiction, assuming it is inherently lacking;
it means that the borrower is not entitled to invoke writ jurisdiction
irrespective of whether the Bank's actions are without jurisdiction or not.
These two concepts are distinct, and the distinction is emphasized by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Pro Knit."
10. In a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Shri Shri Swami Samarth Construction & Finance Solution and
Ors. v. The Board of Directors of NKGSB Co-op. Bank Ltd. and Ors.
(2025 SCC Online SC 1566), the dictum was as follows: -
2026:KER:3869
"6. XX xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx We
would read and interpret the seemingly confusing terms of the Framework
harmoniously to ensure that a right under the MSME Act is not destroyed
by the SARFAESI Act or vice versa. In our reading, the terms of the
Framework do not prohibit the lending bank / secured creditor (assuming
that it has no conscious knowledge that the defaulting borrower is an
MSME) to classify the account of the defaulting MSME as NPA and to even
issue the demand notice under S.13(2) of the SARFAESI Act without such
identification of incipient stress in the account of the defaulting borrower
(MSME); however, upon receipt of the demand notice, if such borrower in
its response under S.13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act asserts that it an MSME and
claims the benefit of the Framework citing reasons supported by an
affidavit, the lending bank/secured creditor would then be mandatorily
bound to look into such claim keeping further action under the SARFAESI
Act in abeyance; and, should the claim be found to be worthy of acceptance
within the framework of the Framework, to act in terms thereof for
securing revival and rehabilitation of the defaulting borrower.
7. As has been noted above, the petitioning enterprise does not seem to have
ever claimed the benefit of the terms of the Framework after the demand
notice under 5.13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued. It is at the stage of
compliance with an order passed by the relevant Magistrate under S. 14 of
the SARFAESI Act that this writ petition has been presented before this
Court claiming benefits of the Framework to restrain the respondent no.2
and its officers from proceeding further under the SARFAESI Act and other
enactments except in the manner contemplated under the said
Notification. We find the bona fides of the petitioning enterprise to be
suspect.
8. Pro Knits is a decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court holding. Inter
alia, that the Notification is binding on the lending banks / secured
creditors. Finding to the contrary by the High Court of Bombay in the
judgment and order under challenge in the appeal was, thus, quashed.
Though while stressing that the terms of the Framework need to be
2026:KER:3869
followed by the lending banks / secured creditors before the account of an
MSME is classified as NPA, this decision also lays stress on the obligation of
the MSMEs by holding that "it would be equally incumbent on the part of
the MSMEs concerned to be vigilant enough to follow the process laid down
under the said Framework, and bring to the notice of the Banks concerned,
by producing authenticated and verifiable documents/material to show its
eligibility to get the benefit of the said Framework". It was cautioned that
"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". This decision,
however, left unsaid something which we have explained hereinabove
while construing the terms consistently to prevent undermining the rights
that one central enactment confers on by another."
11. The position regarding the MSME framework was
further clarified in M.D. Esthappan Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. & Ors.
v. Reserve Bank of India & Ors. [2025 KHC Online 2176], wherein
this Court rejected the contention that MSME classification itself acts
as an automatic bar to NPA classification or recovery proceedings. This
Court observed that the failure to trigger the revival mechanism was
attributable solely to the petitioners' inaction. This principle was
subsequently affirmed by the Division Bench, which held that a
2026:KER:3869
borrower who fails to disclose their MSME status prior to an account
being classified as an NPA is precluded from subsequently challenging
SARFAESI Act proceedings on that basis. Citing the law laid down in
Pro Knits (supra), this Court further emphasized that borrowers
cannot remain passive throughout the recovery process only to assert
lapsed remedies at a belated stage. Consequently, a claim for MSME
protection is legally untenable if the borrower fails to notify the bank
or invoke the corrective action mechanism within the prescribed
timelines. The learned counsel for the respondents also points out
that Ext.P13 sanction letter, which the petitioner relied on, shows the
rate of interest applicable for non-MSME accounts, which also reveals
that the petitioner enterprise is not an MSME.
12. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Pro Knits (supra) and that laid down by the Division Bench
of this Court in P.K. Krishnakumar(supra) and by the Single Bench
of this Court in M.D. Esthappan (supra), if, at the stage prior to the
2026:KER:3869
classification of the loan accounts as NPA, the borrowers do not bring
to the notice of the Bank that it is an MSME and allow the proceedings
under the SARFAESI Act to go through, then they will be precluded
from raising it at a belated stage. A combined reading of these
judgments along with that of Shri Shri Swami Samarth (supra),
made the position more clarified that MSME Framework provisions
must be read harmoniously, wherein both Banks and MSMEs have
complementary obligations regarding obtaining the benefits
associated with the said Framework.
13. While the banks and creditors are under a mandate to
identify incipient stress in MSME accounts prior to NPA classification,
a reciprocal obligation is cast upon the concerned MSMEs to
proactively initiate proceedings for rehabilitation. The enterprise is
duty-bound to provide all necessary authenticated documents and
affidavits to substantiate its MSME status before the account is
classified as a Non-Performing Asset. If an enterprise fails to disclose
2026:KER:3869
its status under the MSMED Act and permits the enforcement of a
security interest under the Act to proceed, it cannot subsequently
invoke its MSME status at a belated stage, and to allow such a plea
would amount to the misuse of the legal process intended solely to
frustrate statutory recovery actions.
14. Regarding the reliefs sought touching the question of
legality of simultaneous proceedings instituted by the respondent
bank, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as per the
first proviso to section 19, if a bank or a financial institution intends
to invoke proceedings under SARFAESI, it shall withdraw the OA so
instituted which is pending, and thus, parallel proceedings instituted
is liable to be quashed.
15. In M/s Transcore v. Union of India, (AIR 2007
SC 712), the hon'ble Supreme Court had upheld the legality of
concurrent proceedings initiated under both the SARFAESI and RDB
Acts, emphasizing that the principle of doctrine of election of
2026:KER:3869
remedies does not apply to the said context as remedies under both
the statutes are complementary rather than exclusive and hence, both
the forums can be approached simultaneously.
16. A learned Single Judge of this Court in M.D.
Esthappan (supra) had also reiterated the permissibility of
simultaneous proceedings under both SARFAESI as well as the RDB
Acts. The relevant portion of the above judgment is extracted herein
for reference:
"17. The principles laid down in the Transcore judgment dealt with the
interplay between the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act (RDB Act) and
the SARFAESI Act The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the first and third
provisos to Section 19(1) of the DRT Act are enabling provisions introduced
to align the DRT Act, NPA Act, and Order XXIII CPC. Withdrawal of the O.A.
is not a precondition for invoking the NPA Act, and the bank/FI may act
under the NPA Act with or without DRT's permission, depending on the
circumstances. The doctrine of election does not apply to the DRT Act and
the NPA Act, as they are not inconsistent or repugnant but together
constitute a single, complementary remedy. The NPA Act provides a non-
adjudicatory mechanism for enforcing the security interest created by the
borrower in favour of the bank/FI, based not only on default in repayment
but also on the borrower's failure to maintain margin and asset value,
thereby enabling secured creditors to act without court intervention.
Issuance of notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act constitutes
initiation of "action" within the meaning of the first proviso to Section 19(1)
of the DRT Act.
2026:KER:3869
18. The Hon'ble Apex Court also held that Section 13(10) of the SARFAESI
Act shows that SARFAESI and DRT remedies are complementary and can be
pursued simultaneously. Section 13(13) of SARFAESI demonstrates that a
Section 13(2) notice has substantive legal consequences and is not merely a
show cause notice. Withdrawal under the first proviso to Section 19(1) may
be necessary in cases where assets are in possession of a court receiver or
under injunction, but not otherwise. The objective behind the proviso is to
provide procedural flexibility and not to restrict enforcement under
SARFAESI, The High Court's view that the proviso is mandatory was
overruled, and it was held that the bank may proceed under SARFAESI
without DRT's prior leave.
17. Hence, the contentions mooted by the counsel for the
petitioners questioning the legality of parallel proceedings under
SARFAESI as well as the RDB Acts cannot be sustained, as the
exhaustion of both the remedies is complementary rather than
exclusive, and therefore can be resorted to simultaneously, in view of
the law laid down in M/s Transcore (supra) and in M.D. Esthappan
Infrastructure (supra).
18. The petitioners' further contention that the judgment
in Transcore and the subsequent decisions relying on Transcore were
2026:KER:3869
decided per incuriam or sub silentio, and thus lack binding authority, is
legally untenable. As emphasized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi [(2025) 3
SCC 95], the doctrine of per incuriam is strictly limited to instances
where a decision demonstrably overlooks a mandatory statutory
provision or a binding precedent that would have fundamentally
altered the outcome. This exception applies exclusively to the ratio
decidendi and cannot be invoked to disregard established law.
Furthermore, judicial discipline dictates that if the correctness of a
precedent is questioned, the appropriate recourse is a reference to a
larger bench, and the subordinate courts cannot unilaterally depart
from settled law unless it is based on sound legal principles.
19. The provision under Article 141 of the Constitution of
India also establishes the principle that the law laid down by the
Supreme Court constitutes the law of the land and must be followed
2026:KER:3869
by all subordinate courts and tribunals across the entire territory of
India. Relevant provision is as follows: -
"Article 141. Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all courts.
The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts
within the territory of India."
20. This article is referred to as the "Doctrine of
Precedent," according to which, the law declared by the Supreme
Court is binding on all courts within the country, including the High
Courts and subordinate judiciary. This constitutional mandate ensures
that the law of the land remains uniform and certain, requiring
subordinate courts to strictly follow and adhere to the ratio decidendi
established by the Apex Court. While the Supreme Court is not bound
by its own previous rulings and may overrule them to correct errors
or adapt to societal changes, all other judicial bodies are duty-bound
to apply its precedents. Even the obiter dicta, or incidental
observations made by the Supreme Court, carry significant persuasive
authority. Therefore, in view of the above given reasoning, as per the
2026:KER:3869
dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision of
Transcore (supra) and other relevant decisions subsequent thereto,
the remedies under SARFAESI as well as the RDB Acts can be
simultaneously invoked, as both the remedies are complementary to
each other.
21. Having regard to the fact that the petitioners failed to
assert their MSME status or provide authenticated substantiating
documents prior to the commencement of recovery, they stand
estopped from seeking protection under the relevant notification at
this belated stage. Following the settled law in Pro Knits(supra), P.K.
Krishnakumar(supra), M.D. Esthappan (supra) and Shri Shri
Swami Samarth(supra), such a belated claim cannot be entertained
after the petitioners remained passive throughout the SARFAESI
proceedings. Furthermore, pursuant to the ratio in Transcore(supra),
the simultaneous invocation of remedies under both SARFAESI as well
as the RDB Acts is legally permissible and does not constitute an
2026:KER:3869
irregularity. Under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the dictum
laid down in Pro Knits, Shri Shri Swami Samarth, and in Transcore remains
the binding law of the land, which this Court and all other subordinate
courts and tribunals are mandated to follow. Consequently, given the
above reasoning and taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances of the case with the above decisions, I find no merit in
the prayers sought by the petitioners, and accordingly, this Writ
Petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
BASANT BALAJI
JUDGE
Dl/JS
2026:KER:3869
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 41907 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A COPY OF THE UDYAM REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE NO
UDYAM-KL-02-0024207, ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF MICRO,
SMALL & MEDIUM ENTERPRISES (MSME), GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA, DATED 3/10/2020
Exhibit P2 A COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 01.05.2023 PASSED BY
SUPREME COURT IN IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.6662/2022
Exhibit P3 A COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 30/11/2023 PASSED BY
THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT APPEAL NO.1730/2023
Exhibit P4 A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07/11/2024 IN WRIT APPEAL
NO.1728/2024,
Exhibit P5 A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13/12/2024 IN SPECIAL LEAVE TO
APPEAL NO.29302/2024 OF THE SUPREME COURT
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN THE I WRIT
PETITIONS NOS. 45166/2024 AND 46514/2024, DATED
11/03/2025 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT PETITION NO.
30885/2024, SARK SPICE V. RBI DATED 22/11/2024 OF THIS
HONOURABLE COURT
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(L) NO. 34253/2022,
DATED 2/12/2022 OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(L) NO. 5781/2025, M/S.
RAY PROJECTS PVT. LTD V. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
CANARA BANK DATED 7/10/2025 OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.14203/2024, &
CONNECTED CASES DATED 22/07/2024 OF THE MADRAS HIGH
COURT
2026:KER:3869
Exhibit P11 A CHART OF THE VARIOUS PROCEEDINGS MS. MANISHA MEHTA
HAD TO INSTITUTE
Exhibit P12 A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.10.2025 OF THE BOMBAY
HIGH COURT IN W.P. NO. 14829 OF 2025
Exhibit P13 A COPY OF THE SANCTION LETTER DATED 27.09.2024 ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT-BANK, WHICH CLEARLY RECORDS THE
PETITIONER NO. 1 FIRM AS MSME ENTERPRISE
Exhibit P14 A COPY OF THE RESPONDENT BANK'S DEMAND NOTICE DATED
24.04.2025 UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF THE SARFAESI ACT, 2002
Exhibit P15 A COPY OF THE PETITIONER NO. 1 FIRM'S LETTER DATED
28.07.2025 TO THE RESPONDENT-BANK
Exhibit P16 A COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 16-07-2025 ISSUED
BY THE RESPONDENT-BANK
Exhibit P17 A COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 15-10-2025 ISSUED BY THE
ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER APPOINTED BY THE CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THRISSUR,
Exhibit P18 A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.8.2025 IN WPC 5466/2025
OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT,
Exhibit P19 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.06.2025 IN WP(MD)
23328/2024 OF THIS HONOURABLE MADURAI BENCH OF
MADRAS HIGH COURT,
Exhibit P20 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/12/2023 OF THE NCLT MUMBAI
IN CP(IB) NO.3025(MB) OF 2019
Exhibit P21 A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/02/2024 OF NCLT-I, MUMBAI,
PASSED IN CP(IB) NO.845(MB) OF 2022
Exhibit P22 A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06/11/2025 IN WP(L) 35163/ 2025
OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT DATED 06.11.2025
Exhibit P23 A COPY OF THE UDYAM REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE NO
UDYAM KL020024207, ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF MICRO,
SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES (MSME), GOVERNMENT OF
2026:KER:3869
INDIA, DATED 16/10/2021 IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONERS
CONCERN
Exhibit P24 A COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. S.O 2119 (E) DATED 26.6.2020
ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Exhibit P25 THE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION SO. 1364 (E) DATED 21.03.2025
Exhibit P26 A COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION S.O 2641(E) DATED 5.8.2016
ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Exhibit P27 A COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION S.O 856(E) DATED 24.2.2020
ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT
Exhibit P28 A COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION S.O 4176(E) DATED 27.08.2018
ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Exhibit P29 A COPY OF THE RBI NOTIFICATION RPCD.NO. PL
NFS.BC.57/06.04.01/2001-2002- DATED 16.01.2002
Exhibit P30 A COPY OF THE RBI NOTIFICATION DBOD.BP.BC.NO.
34/21.04.132/2005-06- DATED 8.9.2005
Exhibit P31 A COPY OF THE RBI NOTIFICATION RBI/2012-13/156 DATED
01.08.2012
Exhibit P32 A COPY OF THE RBI NOTIFICATION RBI/2018-19/203 DATED
07.06.2019
Exhibit P33 A COPY OF THE MASTER DIRECTION ISSUED BY RBI LENDING TO
MAME SECTOR- DIRECTIONS 2016
Exhibit P34 A COPY OF THE MASTER CIRCULAR- PRUDENTIAL NORMS ON
INCOME RECOGNITION, ASSET CLASSIFICATION PROVISIONING
PERTAINING TO ADVANCES,
