Kerala High Court
M/S. Sark Spice Products Pvt. Ltd vs Reserve Bank Of India on 28 July, 2025
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 6TH SRAVANA, 1947
CON.CASE(C) NO. 3402 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN WP(C) NO.42050 OF 2024
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONERS/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, THROUGH POWER ATTORNEY
HOLDER MR. SUNNY MATHEW, CHAMAKKALAYIL HOUSE,KANAKKARI
P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686534
2 ABRAHAM T. KURUVILA @ T.A. KURUVILA
AGED 72 YEARS,S/O. LATE T.C. ABRAHAM, CHAIRMAN &
MANAGING DIRECTOR, SARK SPICE PRODUCE PVT. LTD.,
THURUTHITHARA HOUSE, EARA NORTH P.O., NEELAMPEROOR,
ALAPPUZHA, KERALA . THROUGH POWER ATTORNEY HOLDER MR.
SUNNY MATHEW, CHAMAKKALAYIL HOUSE, KANAKKARI P.O,
KOTTAYAM P.O, PIN - 686534
BY ADVS.
SMT. MARIA NEDUMPARA
SHRI.SHAMEEM FAYIZ V.P.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4:
1 P.R.SHESHADRI
(AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) CEO
& MANAGING DIRECTOR, SIB HOUSE, T.B.ROAD, MISSION
QUARTERS, THRISSUR-, PIN - 680001
2 SAJU CLEMENT
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 2
(AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
AUTHORISED OFFICER, SOUTH INDIAN BANK, REGIONAL
OFFICE, KOTTAYAM, 1ST FLOOR, REGENCY SQUARE, K,K,ROAD,
COLLECTORATE P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686002
3 RAJEEV
(AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS)
AUTHORIZED OFFICER, SOUTH INDIAN BANK, REGIONAL
OFFICE, KOTTAYAM 1ST FLOOR, REGENCY SQUARE, K.K. ROAD,
COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 686002
4 VINAYAK
(AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS)
RECOVERY MANAGER, SOUTH INDIAN BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE,
KOTTAYAM 1ST FLOOR, REGENCY SQUARE, K.K. ROAD,
COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 686002
5 DON
(AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS)
LEGAL MANAGER, SOUTH INDIAN BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE,
KOTTAYAM 1ST FLOOR, REGENCY SQUARE, K.K. ROAD,
COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 686002
6 NEENU ABRAHAM
(AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS)
RECOVERY HEAD, SOUTH INDIAN BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE,
KOTTAYAM 1ST FLOOR, REGENCY SQUARE, K.K. ROAD,
COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 686002
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 01.07.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).4389/2025, 8287/2025
AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 28.07.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 6TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 4389 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
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, THROUGH POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER MR. SUNNY MATHEW CHAMAKKALAYIL HOUSE,
KANAKKARI P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686534
2 ABRAHAM T. KURUVILA @ T.A. KURUVILA,
S/O. LATE T.C. ABRAHAM, CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SARK SPICE PRODUCE PVT. LTD., THURUTHITHARA HOUSE,
EARA NORTH P.O., NEELAMPEROOR, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA,
THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR. SUNNY MATHEW,
CHAMAKKALAYIL HOUSE, KANAKKARI P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN -
686534
BY ADVS.
SMT. MARIA NEDUMPARA
SHRI.SHAMEEM FAYIZ V.P.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GOVERNOR SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH ROAD,
FORT, MUMBAI, PIN - 400001
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
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 4
3 SOUTH INDIAN BANK,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO &MANAGING DIRECTOR, SIB HOUSE,
T.B. ROAD, MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN -
680001
4 AUTHORISED OFFICER & CHIEF MANAGER,
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
8 DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM (DRT 2),
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,1ST & 8TH FLOOR, KSHB
OFFICE COMPLEX, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
682036
9 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KAINADY POLICE STATION, KAINADY P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN -
686534
10 P.R. SHESHADRI,
CEO & MANAGING DIRECTOR, SIB HOUSE, T.B. ROAD, MISSION
QUARTERS, THRISSUR, PIN - 680001
11 SAJU CLEMENT,
AUTHORISED OFFICER, SOUTH INDIAN BANK, REGIONAL
OFFICE, KOTTAYAM, 1ST FLOOR, REGENCY SQUARE, K.K.
ROAD, COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN -
686002
12 RAJEEV,
AUTHORIZED OFFICER, SOUTH INDIAN BANK, REGIONAL
OFFICE, KOTTAYAM 1ST FLOOR, REGENCY SQUARE, K.K. ROAD,
COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686002
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 5
13 VINAYAK,
RECOVERY MANAGER, SOUTH INDIAN BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE,
KOTTAYAM 1ST FLOOR, REGENCY SQUARE, K.K. ROAD,
COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686002
14 DON,
LEGAL MANAGER, SOUTH INDIAN BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE,
KOTTAYAM 1ST FLOOR, REGENCY SQUARE, K.K. ROAD,
COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686002
15 NEENU ABRAHAM,
RECOVERY HEAD, SOUTH INDIAN BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE,
KOTTAYAM 1ST FLOOR, REGENCY SQUARE, K.K. ROAD,
COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686002
16 ADV. A. ANILKUMAR,
ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER, NEAR DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA,
PIN - 688013
BY ADVS.
SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI-R1
SHRI.SUNIL SHANKER-R2 TO R4
SHRI.C.DINESH, CGC-R5 & R6
SMT.VIDYA GANGADHARAN
SMT.ARYA SATHEESH
SMT.SURYA BINOY, GP -R7 & R9
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
01.07.2025, ALONG WITH Con.Case(C).3402/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 28.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 6TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 8287 OF 2025
PETITIONER/S:
1 ABRAHAM T KURUVILA,
AGED 72 YEARS, S/O. (LATE) T. C. ABRAHAM,
THURUTHITHARA HOUSE, NEELAMPEROOR, EARA NORTH P.O.,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 686534
2 SUSAN KURUVILLA,
AGED 62 YEARS
W/O ABRAHAM T KURUVILLA, RESIDING AT THURUTHIRA HOUSE,
EARA NORTH P.O., NEELAMPEROOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN
- 686534
BY ADVS.
SRI.ASWIN GOPAKUMAR
SRI.ANWIN GOPAKUMAR
SHRI.ADITYA VENUGOPALAN
SHRI.MAHESH CHANDRAN
SMT.SARANYA BABU
SMT.ANJANA A.
SHRI.ABHISHEK S.
SMT.TANYA KADEEJA
SHRI.TOMY THOMAS
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE CUM CORPORATE
HEADQUARTERS AT T. B ROAD, MISSION QUARTERS,
THRISSUR,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN -
680001
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 7
2 THE CHIEF MANAGER (AUTHORISED OFFICER),
THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED, REGIONAL OFFICE,
KOTTAYAM, 1ST FLOOR, REGENCY SQUARE, K. K. ROAD,
COLLECTORATE P. O.,KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002
3 THE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER,
COCHIN SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE (CSEZ),MINISTRY OF
COMMERCE & INDUSTRY, GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA,ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, KAKKANAD, COCHIN, PIN -
682037
4 THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE),
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE,5TH FLOOR,
CATHOLIC CENTRE, BROADWAY, COCHIN, PIN - 68203
BY ADVS.
SHRI.SUNIL SHANKER-R1 & R2
SHRI.T.C.KRISHNA, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL-R3
SRI.V.GIRISH KUMAR, SC,CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES
& CUSTOMS
SMT.VIDYA GANGADHARAN
SMT.ARYA SATHEESH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.07.2025, ALONG WITH Con.Case(C).3402/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 28.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 6TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 42050 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
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, KERALA, PIN - 686534
2 ABRAHAM T. KURUVILA @ T.A. KURUVILA,
S/O. LATE T.C. ABRAHAM, CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SARK SPICE PRODUCE PVT. LTD., THURUTHITHARA HOUSE,
EARA NORTH P.O., NEELAMPEROOR, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA, PIN
- 686534
BY ADVS.
SMT. MARIA NEDUMPARA
SHRI.SHAMEEM FAYIZ V.P.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GOVERNOR SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH ROAD,
FORT, MUMBAI, PIN - 400001
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 SOUTH INDIAN BANK,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO &MANAGING DIRECTOR, SIB HOUSE,
T.B. ROAD,MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN -
680001
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 9
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
8 MANAGER,
ECGC LIMITED,MRA, ASHRAMAM RD, ULIYAKOVIL EAST,
ASRAMAM, KOLLAM, KERALA, PIN - 691008
9 ECGC LIMITED,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,10TH FLOOR,
EXPRESS TOWER, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI, PIN - 400021
10 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
11 THE CHAIRMAN,
STATE LEVEL INTER INSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE, RBI
REGIONAL OFFICE, BAKERY JUNCTION, P.B. NO. 6507,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
12 CHAIRMAN, PRIME MINISTER'S TASK FORCE ON MSMES,
PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN -
110001
13 CHAIRMAN,
WORKING GROUP ON REHABILITATION OF SICK MSMES, RESERVE
BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI, PIN - 400001
14 BANKING CODES AND STANDARDS BOARD OF INDIA (BCSBI),
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 10
WORLD TRADE CENTRE COMPLEX, 6TH FLOOR CENTRE 1
BUILDING, WORLD TRADE CENTRE COMPLEX, CUFF PARADE,
MUMBAI, PIN - 400005
15 ANIL DHIRAJLAL AMBANI,
SEA WIND, CUFF PARADE, MUMBAI, PIN - 400005
BY ADVS.
SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
SHRI.SUNIL SHANKER R2-R4
SMT.K.MALINI
SHRI.MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN
SMT.VIDYA GANGADHARAN
SMT.DEVAYANI NAIR T.H.
SHRI.NELSON JOSEPH
SRI.M.D.JOSEPH
SHRI.DEEPAK ASHOK KUMAR
SHRI.JESWIN JACOB
SRI.C.DINESH,CGC- R5 & R6
SMT.SURYA BINOY, SR.GP -R7
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
01.07.2025, ALONG WITH Con.Case(C).3402/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 28.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 11
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.
........................................................................
W.P(C) Nos.42050/2024, 4389/2025, 8287/2025
and Con. Case (C) No.3402/2024
.....................................................................................
Dated this the 28th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
In W.P.(C) No. 42050 of 2024, the petitioners, comprising a private
limited company and its Managing Director, had availed multiple credit
facilities from the respondent Bank, including working capital and term
loans aggregating over Rs. 10 crores, secured by mortgage of immovable
properties. Upon default, the loan account was classified as a Non-
Performing Asset (NPA) with effect from 20.10.2020. Recovery proceedings
were initiated under the SARFAESI Act, including issuance of notice under
Section 13(2), followed by filing of an application before the Debts
Recovery Tribunal for recovery of the outstanding dues. Though the
petitioners were sanctioned a one-time settlement (OTS), they repeatedly
defaulted in making the committed payments, leading to the withdrawal
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 12
of settlement terms and continuation of enforcement proceedings.
2. After several unsuccessful litigations before this Court and the
DRAT, the petitioners have now approached this Court contending that
they are a registered Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise (MSME) as per
Udyam Registration obtained prior to NPA classification, and are therefore
entitled to protection under the revival and rehabilitation framework
notified by the Central Government through Ext. P8 notification dated
29.05.2015, and made binding on banks by the Ext. P9 RBI circular dated
17.03.2016. It is their case that the Bank proceeded under SARFAESI
without first referring their account to the Committee for stressed MSMEs
as mandated in the said framework, and hence the proceedings are legally
untenable. They rely on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pro
Knits v. Canara Bank, [(2024) 10 SCC 292], to contend that where MSME
status is evident prior to NPA classification, the Bank is obligated to
consider corrective steps under the statutory framework before resorting
to coercive recovery.
3. The petitioners contend that the defaults were due to
unforeseen business losses and the impact of the pandemic, and that they
made bona fide efforts to settle the dues through various proposals. The
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 13
petitioners contend that the MSME Notification dated 29.05.2015, issued
under Section 9 of the MSMED Act, has statutory force equivalent to
legislation and mandates that recovery against MSMEs shall only proceed
after stress identification and resolution through the Committee
mechanism under para 5(4)(iii). The Bank’s failure to comply with this
precondition, despite the petitioners’ registration as an MSME, renders the
recovery proceedings void ab initio.
4. The petitioners submit that the MSME Notification dated
29.05.2015 lays down a mandatory three-stage framework for stressed
accounts–rectification, restructuring, and only thereafter, recovery–
applicable upon classification of the borrower under Special Mention
Account (SMA) categories. Clause 3 of the framework mandates the
constitution of an expert, impartial Committee with representatives from
creditors, the State, and external MSME professionals. This Committee is
statutorily tasked with formulating a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) prior to
any coercive action. The petitioners contend that in their case, the
respondent Bank bypassed both the rectification and restructuring stages
and proceeded directly to recovery, thereby acting in violation of its
obligations under the notification.
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 14
5. They further point to the RBI Circular dated 01.10.2021, which
reiterates the mandatory duty of banks to identify incipient stress even
before a default occurs and to proactively implement resolution
mechanisms for all borrowers, not just MSMEs. Paragraph 2 of the circular
reinforces the requirement for constituting a Committee for stressed
MSMEs. The petitioners allege that no such Committee was ever formed by
the respondent Bank, nor were they informed about its existence or the
process under the Corrective Action Plan. They argue that the Bank failed
in its duty to provide access to rehabilitation mechanisms and did not
respond to multiple representations seeking restructuring. The omission
to implement these mandatory frameworks, despite clear eligibility and
prior registration as an MSME, further undermines the legality of the
recovery proceedings. The petitioners argue that the RBI and Central
Government, under the Banking Regulation Act and RBI Act, are
statutorily obligated to ensure the lawful conduct of banks and may issue
binding directions or take disciplinary action where necessary.
6. The petitioners submit that no previous writ was decided on
the merits of their entitlement under the MSMED Act or the 29.05.2015
notification, and hence res judicata or estoppel does not apply. Procedural
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 15
dismissals or denial of amendments cannot bar substantive rights,
especially where liberty to re-agitate was granted. They rely on the RBI
Master Circular dated 01.10.2021 (para 9.1), mandating pre-default
resolution plans, and contend that failure to implement such plans
renders NPA classification and recovery action legally unsustainable.
7. The petitioners submit that Ext. P17 representation was made
requesting the constitution of a Committee under the MSME framework
and for action against the Bank under Section 36AA of the Banking
Regulation Act, but no response was received, necessitating the invocation
of writ jurisdiction. They also raise apprehension over potential
proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC, contending that it is one-sided,
denies borrowers access to counterclaims or damages, and is under
constitutional challenge before multiple High Courts.
8. Further, the petitioners allege a fraudulent practice by the
respondent Bank in handling ECGC insurance proceeds. Despite receiving
insurance payouts meant to compensate export defaults, the Bank credited
the amounts to a suspense account instead of adjusting the petitioner’s
overdue loan account. This, they argue, is a systemic fraud that unjustly
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 16
burdens MSME borrowers and enables banks to recover from both the
borrower and the insurer, with the RBI remaining passive.
9. The petitioners subsequently filed W.P.(C) No. 4389 of 2025
contending that, despite W.P.(C) No. 42050 of 2024 being part-heard and
adjourned for further hearing on 19.12.2024, the Advocate Commissioner,
acting under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and at the instance of senior
bank officials, took possession of the petitioners’ residential property on
18.12.2024. It is contended that this action, undertaken during the
pendency of the writ petition, amounts to interference with the
administration of justice and forms the subject matter of Contempt Case
No. 3402 of 2024. The petitioners further allege that the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate continued to issue compliance directions under Section
14 despite the Court being in seisin of the matter, and that such
proceedings were without jurisdiction, attracting the principle in
praesentia majoris cessat potentia minoris.
10. The petitioners also challenge the constitutionality of Section
14 of the SARFAESI Act, to the extent it permits ex parte possession orders
without notice or hearing. It is argued that such a provision violates
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 17
natural justice and enables recovery without due process. The affidavit of
undertaking to remit Rs. 2 crores is stated to have been given under
coercion and cannot constitute a valid waiver of statutory rights,
particularly when substantial payments had already been made.
11. The petitioners have also instituted W.P.(C) No. 8287 of 2025,
involving the same financial transactions and property dispossession
challenged in the earlier proceedings. In addition to reiterating their
entitlement to protection under the MSME notification and alleging
unlawful recovery proceedings, the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 8287 of 2025
contend that the first petitioner’s proprietary concern, M/s. Kalpaka
Processing Co., is a registered Export Oriented Unit (EOU) under Chapter 6
of the Foreign Trade Policy. As such, it is governed by a special legal
framework that confers several statutory benefits, including duty-free
procurement of raw materials and capital goods. The EOU is required to be
a positive net foreign exchange (NFE) earner, calculated cumulatively over
five-year block periods, as prescribed under Paragraph 6.04 and Appendix
6B of the Foreign Trade Policy, read with Paragraph 6.10 of the Handbook
of Procedures. The Handbook permits extensions of the NFE period in
cases of genuine hardship or adverse market conditions, providing a
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 18
flexible and welfare-based regime to promote exports.
12. The petitioners further submit that financial stress arose due
to mismanagement by an investor group that took control in 2014, leading
to diversion of funds and operational failures, including non-renewal of
insurance during the 2018-2019 floods. Control was restored to the
petitioners through a retransfer agreement in 2020, but before revival
efforts could materialise, the bank classified the account as NPA and
initiated SARFAESI proceedings, disregarding the underlying causes of
stress and the statutory protections available to the petitioners as an
MSME and EOU.
13. The petitioners further submit that the SARFAESI action led to
the cancellation of SARK’s exporter registration, forcing them to route
export orders through Kalpaka Processing Co. Despite this, they secured
major domestic and international orders, including a tie-up with Mahatma
Gandhi University and confirmed exports to Webb James SRL, Italy. They
contend that no security interest exists over the Kalpaka factory, yet the
bank wrongfully retains possession, risking asset deterioration. They
further allege that the bank, influenced by estranged investors, is
selectively targeting them while sparing equally liable guarantors, and
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 19
that the steps to auction their residence are arbitrary and retaliatory.
14. The petitioners assert that the SARFAESI proceedings are
vitiated by breach of mandatory safeguards under the MSMED Act and RBI
Circular, and that action against Kalpaka Processing Co.–a registered EOU
–violates the Foreign Trade Policy and Customs law. No security interest
exists over the factory premises, making possession unlawful. The
petitioners further contend that the recovery process is arbitrary,
discriminatory, and constitutionally infirm under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and
300A, especially in light of their ongoing revival efforts and the bank’s
selective enforcement.
15. In the counter affidavit on behalf of the bank in WPC No.
42050 of 2024, the respondents contended that the writ petition is not
maintainable either in law or on facts and amounts to an abuse of judicial
process, being a deliberate attempt to mislead the Court by suppressing
material facts and past litigation history. It was submitted that an Ext. P15,
earlier writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 30885 of 2024, raising the same cause of
action including the plea that the petitioners were entitled to MSME
protection and that the NPA classification and SARFAESI proceedings were
illegal, was dismissed by judgment dated 22.11.2024, and that the said
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 20
judgment has not been appealed but is sought to be circumvented by filing
the present petition under a different guise. This was dismissed vide
judgment dated 22.11.2024, and later on 26.11.2024, the present writ
petition was filed.
16. The maintainability of the writ petition was further
challenged on the ground of the availability of an alternative remedy
under the SARFAESI Act. The petitioners had unsuccessfully pursued
interim relief before the DRT-2, Ernakulam, followed by an appeal before
the DRAT, Chennai, which was also dismissed, and further challenged in
W.P.(C) No. 21054 of 2024 before the Madras High Court. The petitioners had
simultaneously instituted Civil Suit No. 18837 of 2024 before the City Civil
Court, Mumbai, claiming that the jurisdiction of civil courts is not ousted.
Hence, the respondents submitted that maintaining parallel writ
proceedings is inconceivable. The petitioners had availed of multiple
banking facilities, including cash credit, overdraft, packing credit, foreign
bill purchase, term loans, and a bank guarantee, all secured by mortgage of
properties and registered with CERSAI. Upon default, the account was
classified as NPA on 24.03.2021 with effect from 20.10.2020.
17. SARFAESI proceedings were initiated by issuing a demand
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 21
notice under Section 13(2) on 09.06.2021, which was replied to by the
petitioners. The authorised officer responded on 25.08.2021. Recovery
proceedings were also initiated through OA No. 242 of 2021 before the DRT.
The petitioners submitted a One Time Settlement (OTS) proposal for Rs. 10
crores on 22.09.2021, which was accepted by the Bank on 06.12.2021. The
petitioners failed to comply with the terms of the OTS, leading to
possession notices dated 16.03.2022 and 01.09.2022 with respect to secured
assets.
18. The Bank also initiated proceedings under the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code, 2016, against the personal guarantors before the NCLT,
Kochi. Thereafter, the petitioner filed WPC No. 30885 of 2024 before this
Court, contending that the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of the
MSME notification, that the NPA classification is illegal, and the
securitisation measures initiated are illegal, etc. The registration of the
petitioner as an MSME was obtained only on 01.10.2020, whereas the
default and the classification of the accounts as NPA were already
imminent and based on prior conduct. Therefore, the petitioners cannot
retrospectively invoke benefits under the RBI circulars dated 29.05.2015 or
otherwise.
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 22
19. The petitioners’ conduct in availing and defaulting multiple
OTS schemes, pursuing parallel civil and writ proceedings, and violating
solemn undertakings demonstrates a pattern of delay and forum-
shopping, with mala fide intent. The respondents emphasised that the RBI
circulars relied upon by the petitioners are not mandatory in the manner
suggested and that the binding precedent in Kotak Mahindra Bank v. Girnar
Corrugators Pvt. Ltd., (2023) 3 SCC 210, establishes that SARFAESI prevails
over MSMED Act in case of conflict.
20. The petitioners’ reliance on Pro Knits is misplaced, as
paragraphs 16 and 17 of that judgment explicitly caution against belated
invocation of MSME status to obstruct SARFAESI proceedings. The same
principles were reaffirmed in W.A. No. 1728 of 2024, where the Court
distinguished between waiver, estoppel, and acquiescence. The
petitioners’ repeated representations and references to ECGC insurance,
alleged fraud, or regulatory collusion were denied in toto. The Bank
clarified that the ECGC claim, even if received, does not absolve the
borrower’s liability. The respondents submitted that all actions have been
taken strictly in accordance with law, after providing repeated
opportunities and accommodations to the petitioners, and that the
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 23
present writ petition is devoid of merit, filed without bona fides, and liable
to be dismissed with costs.
21. In W.P.(C) No. 42050 of 2024, a statement has been filed on behalf of the
Reserve Bank of India (RBI), contending that the primary allegation raised
by the petitioner, challenging the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act
and alleging inaction by the RBI and Union of India in enforcing
compliance with the Corrective Action Plan (CAP) mechanism under Exts.
P2 and P3 are factually incorrect and legally unsustainable. The RBI
submits that pursuant to discussions with the Ministry of MSME, the
framework for revival and rehabilitation of stressed MSMEs with a loan
limit up to Rs. 25 crore was revised and reissued via Ext. P3 circular dated
17.03.2016, superseding Ext. P2. The revised framework applies to all
Scheduled Commercial Banks (excluding RRBs) and mandates the
formation of committees for addressing stress in MSME accounts.
22. To monitor implementation, SCBs are required to file half-
yearly regulatory returns with the RBI. Based on data submitted for the
half year ending 30.09.2024, a total of 3,41,137 cases were referred to such
committees, and 3,14,930 cases were resolved during the half year ending
in September 2024, and submits that the allegation that committees were
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 24
not constituted, or that RBI failed in its supervisory role, is thus explicitly
denied. It is further stated that review of stressed MSME units under this
framework is regularly taken up as an agenda item in quarterly
Empowered Committee meetings for MSMEs conducted by RBI’s Regional
Offices. Additionally, aggrieved borrowers have a remedy under the
Reserve Bank, Integrated Ombudsman Scheme, 2021, for redressal of
grievances relating to deficiencies in banking services.
23. In W.P.(C) No. 8287 of 2025, in the statement filed by the Standing
Counsel on behalf of the 3rd respondent, Development Commissioner, it is
submitted that the 3rd respondent had issued a licence to M/s Kalpaka
Processing Co. The 3rd respondent exercises regulatory control over the
Unit solely to ensure compliance with export performance requirements
and achievement of positive Net Foreign Exchange (NFE), and is
empowered to impose penalties for violations under the Foreign Trade
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. Significantly, it is contended that
the 3rd respondent has no role or authority with respect to the financial
borrowings or loan liabilities of the Unit, nor does it impose any
restriction on the creation of a security interest over the assets of the Unit
by financial institutions. The only fiscal liability arising in relation to the
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 25
3rd respondent pertains to penalties for non-fulfilment of NFE obligations,
which are recovered as arrears of land revenue.
24. The statement further notes that the Unit is presently
operational and has shown a cumulative export performance of Rs. 1549.20
lakhs for 2023-24, with a positive NFE of Rs. 1265.19 lakhs over the last
five-year block period. It is asserted that none of the contentions raised by
the petitioners are sustainable, no relief is sought against the 3rd
respondent, and no violation of any fundamental or statutory rights is
disclosed. The writ petition is described as devoid of merit and
experimental in nature, liable to be dismissed with costs to the 3rd
respondent.
25. Sri Mathew J. Nedumpara, reiterating the contentions
pleaded in the writ petitions, submits the following in support of the
prayers sought:
(i) The petitioner relied on Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan [(1954) 1 SCR
1178], A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak [(1988) 2 SCC 602], Ridge v. Baldwin [AC 40
(HL)], and Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [(1997) 5 SCC 536] to argue
that the SARFAESI action is void ab initio for non-compliance with the
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 26mandatory preconditions under Paragraph 5(4)(iii) of the MSME
Framework, rendering the proceedings non est in law.
(ii) The petitioner submits that a writ of certiorari lies as a matter of right
where a statutory authority acts ultra vires or in violation of natural
justice, and such a remedy is not barred by the existence of an alternative
forum. Reliance is placed on A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India ((1969) 2 SCC
262), A.V. Venkateswaran v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani (AIR 1961 SC
1506), A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak [(1988) 2 SCC 602], Mafatlal Industries
Ltd. v. Union of India [(1997) 5 SCC 536], Whirlpool Corporation v.
Registrar of Trademarks ((1998) 8 SCC 1), State of U.P. v. Mohammed Nooh
(AIR 1958 SC 86), and Smt. Ujjam Bai v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1962
SC 1621). The respondent’s reliance on Paragraph 17 of Pro Knits v.
Canara Bank [2024 LiveLaw (SC) 548] is misconceived, as the observations
therein were fact-specific and cannot override the statutory mandate. The
principle that judgments must be read as a whole and not in fragments is
well established in Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka
[(2003) 6 SCC 697, para 2].
(iii) The petitioner submits that the MSMED Act, being a welfare statute,
must be construed liberally and purposively, applying ut res magis valeat
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 27
quam pereat and ex visceribus actus. Reliance is placed on Delhi Gymkhana
Club v. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (2015) 1 SCC 142, National
Insurance Co. Ltd v. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297, U.P. Drugs &
Pharmaceuticals Co. Ltd. v. Ramanuj Yadav (2003) 8 SCC 334, and
Pathumma & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. (1978) 2 SCC 1.
(iv) The petitioner submits that judgments cannot override or substitute
statutory provisions, and in case of conflict, the statute prevails; reliance is
placed on Union of India v. Amrit Lal Manchanda [(2004) 3 SCC 75, para
15], Union of India v. Dhanwanti Devi [(1996) 6 SCC 44, paras 9-10],
Arasmeta Captive Power Co. v. Lafarge India [(2013) 15 SCC 414, paras 31-
39, 41], and Oriental Insurance v. Raj Kumari [AIR 2008 SC 403, paras
12-13].
(v) The petitioner submits that when a judgment conflicts with a statute or
settled principles of law, the statute prevails, and courts are not bound to
follow judgments rendered per incuriam or sub silentio. As held in A.R.
Antulay [(1988) 2 SCC 602], conflicting decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court must be resolved by following the correct principle of law, not
isolated observations or bench strength. The petitioner contends that Pro
Knits (supra) affirms the statutory force of the 29.05.2015 MSME
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 28
notification, and only stray remarks in Para 17 appear inconsistent. Since
the petitioner’s loan was availed as an MSME with full disclosure, even Pro
Knits–read as a whole–supports the case. Courts must interpret
judgments contextually and not treat them as substitutes for statutes.
Reliance is placed on Amrit Lal Manchanda (2004) 3 SCC 75, CIT v. Sun
Engineering ((1992) 4 SCC 363), Azadi Bachao Andolan (2004) 10 SCC 1,
Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. v. N.R. Vairamani (2004) 8 SCC 579, Sudhansu
Sekhar Misra AIR 1968 SC 647, Goodyear India (1990) 2 SCC 71, Utility
Users’ Welfare Assn. (2018) 6 SCC 21, and LIC v. D.J. Bahadur (1981) 1 SCC
315.
(vi) The petitioner hold reliance in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak [(1988) 2
SCC 602, paras 41-51], in which it is held as, res judicata applies only if
the earlier decision was on merits, within jurisdiction, complied with
natural justice, and did not violate statutory provisions, to argue that
there can be no estoppel against law, and the earlier decisions do not
attract res judicata.
(vii) The petitioner submits that no party should suffer due to an error
committed by the court (actus curiae neminem gravabit), and the court is
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 29
bound ex debito justitiae to undo such injustice. The judgment in W.P.(C) No.
30885 of 2024 is said to be based on a legal misunderstanding of Pro Knits
(supra) and P.K. Krishnakumar (2024 SCC OnLine Ker 6888), treating
judicial observations as overriding the statutory notification dated
29.05.2015. Such an error of law and jurisdiction is rectifiable in direct or
collateral proceedings. Reliance is placed on A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak
[(1988) 2 SCC 602, paras 49, 57, 75, 76, 79, 81-83], Kiran Singh v.
Chaman Paswan [(1954) 1 SCR 1178], Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ram
Bohra [(1990) 1 SCC 193], State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar
[(2011) 14 SCC 770], Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd. [(1996)
5 SCC 550], Nawabkhan Abbaskhan v. State of Gujarat [(1974) 2 SCC 121],
Management of Sonepat Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Ajit Singh [(2005) 3
SCC 232], and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand [(2008) 10 SCC 1].
(viii) The petitioner submits that the dismissal of the SLP against W.P.(C)
No. 30885 of 2024 by a non-speaking order does not result in merger or
estoppel, as held in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [(2000) 6 SCC 359],
Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Scotch Whisky Assn. [(2008) 10 SCC 723], and
Manisha Nimesh Mehta v. ICICI Bank [(2024) 9 SCC 573]. Further, the
petitioner’s undertaking to remit Rs. 2 crore does not bar relief, since an
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 30
undertaking cannot excuse a public authority from discharging its
statutory duty, as held in Canara Bank v. N.G. Subbaraya Setty and Anr.
[(2018) 16 SCC 228]. It is also submitted, relying on A.R. Antulay v. R.S.
Nayak [(1988) 2 SCC 602], that a prior decision which fails to give effect to
a statutory prohibition does not operate as res judicata, as public policy
embedded in law prevails over private rights.
26. The learned counsel, Sri. Sunil Shankar, reiterating the
contentions in the counter affidavit filed by the bank, argues that the
present writ petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. The
very same contentions were raised in W.P. (C) No.30885/2025, which was
dismissed. The Special Leave Petition SLP No. 29301 of 2024 filed against
the same was also dismissed on 28.04.2025. It is after the dismissal of the
writ petition by the High Court that this writ petition is filed. It is also
submitted that the present writ petition is hit by the principles of res
judicata, constructive res judicata and the issue is squarely covered against
the petitioner by the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pro Knits
(supra) and of this Court in P.K. Krishnakumar and M.D. Esthappan v.
Reserve Bank of India (2025 SCC OnLine Ker 4193). It is also pointed out that
the series of litigations instituted by the petitioner shows that his attempt
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 31
is to somehow drag the proceedings.
27. Heard both sides and perused the records.
28. A list of the proceedings instituted by the petitioners against
the bank so far is as follows:
Sl Case No. Relief Sought / Disposal / How Disposed /
. Subject Order Date Status
N
o.
1 W.P.(C) No. Challenged 11.07.2022 Disposed;
9509 of 2022 possession permitted to
notice dated approach the bank
16.03.2022; for settlement.
prayed to
accept OTS if
paid before
31.03.2022
2 W.P.(C) No. Direction to 13.10.2022 Disposed; directed
28659 of 2022 accept OTS the bank to
amount before consider the
30.09.2022 extension of the
OTS
3 S.A. No. 77 of Challenge to 02.03.2023 Stay application
2023 (DRT-2) SARFAESI dismissed
action
4 O.P.(DRT) No. Challenged 25.05.2023 Dismissed;
122 of 2023 rejection of stay relegated to DRAT
by DRT
5 A.I.R. No. 712 Appeal with 09.11.2023 Dismissed for non-
of 2023 (DRAT) waiver petition compliance with
the deposit
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 32
6 O.P.(DRT) No. Direction to 19.06.2023 Allowed; waiver
232 of 2023 DRAT to heard
consider waiver
7 O.P.(DRT) No. Restoration of 05.01.2024 Dismissed
488 of 2023 DRAT appeal
8 W.P.(C) No. Seeking 25 20.05.2024 Dismissed
7607 of 2024 Installment
facility for
paying
outstanding
amount.
9 W.P.(C) No. Direction to 12.06.2024 Dismissed after
10785 of 2024 consider bank rejection
restructuring
proposal
10 W.P.(C) No. -- 30.05.2024 Dismissed as
11138 of 2024 withdrawn
11 W.P.(C) No. Direction to 01.07.2024 Dismissed for
19103 of 2024 consider OTS breach of
proposal undertaking
12 Civil Suit No. Filed before -- Pending
18837 of 2024 City Civil Court,
Mumbai
13 W.P.(C) No. Claimed MSME 22.11.2024 Dismissed
30885 of 2024 protection;
challenged
SARFAESI
14 W.P.(C) No. Challenge to Pending Admitted on
42050 of 2024 SARFAESI, RDB, 21.02.2025; notice
IBC provisions issued
15 W.P.(C) No. Challenge to -- Pending
21054 of 2024 DRAT dismissal
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 33
(Madras HC)
29. Among the list of cases filed earlier, the petitioner filed W.P.C.
30885/2024, taking the very same ground that the action of the bank is
illegal, as the same was done in violation of the MSME notifications and
the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pro Knits. The relevant portions of
the judgment in the said case dated 22.11.2024 are extracted below:-
“The petitioner claims to be a Micro-Small Medium Enterprise
(“MSME”) registered under the Micro Small Medium Enterprises
Development Act, 2006 (“MSMED Act, 2006“), having Udyam
Registration No. UDYAM-KL-01-0000886. Petitioner No. 1, after
being incorporated, commenced the business of exporting spices
on 13.06.1990.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
respondent Bank in violation of the provisions of the notification
dated 29.05.2015, issued in exercise of the powers conferred
under Section 9 of the MSMED Act 2006 by the Central
Government for the purpose of facilitating the promotion and
development of MSME as well as in violation of the circular
dated 17.03.2016 issued by the RBI, classified the loan accounts of
the petitioners as NPA, and therefore, all further proceedings
thereafter are nullity and liable to be quashed.
5. It is submitted that in the present case, the respondent Bank
did not extend any opportunity for revival and rehabilitation to
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 34the petitioners as provided under the said notification and in an
illegal and malafide manner initiated the SARFAESI proceedings
against the petitioner and classified the loan accounts of the
petitioners as NPA since the petitioners have committed serious
defaults in repaying the loan amount and has proceeded under
the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and rules made thereunder.
10. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank has submitted
that the writ petition is not maintainable because suppression of
the material facts from this court would constitute fraud and
misuse of the judicial process.
11. It is submitted that the petitioners have suppressed the
material facts of filing earlier writ petitions to mislead this court.
The petitioners have not disclosed the filing W.P(C)Nos.
9509/2022, 28695/2022, OP DRT Nos.122/2023 &. 232/2023, W.P (C)
Nos. 7607 of 2024, 10785/2024, 11138 of 2024 & 19103 of 2024.
23. Now, the petitioners have again approached this court with
the present writ petition, taking the plea of the petitioners being
MSME undertaking and the non-compliance of the Government
Order and Circular issued by the Central Government and the
RBI on this aspect.
24. Heard Adv. Mathew Nedumpara, the learned counsel for the
petitioner assisted by Ms. Maria Nedumpara and Adv. Sunil
Shankar, the learned Standing counsel for the respondents.
25. The Supreme Court, in its judgment in M/s PRO KNITS v. THE
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 35BOARD 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 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. Paragraphs 16 and 17 of the said judgment are extracted
hereunder:- 16. We may hasten to add that under the
“Framework for Revival and Rehabilitation of MSMEs”, the
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 36banks 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 the enforcement of the 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
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 37
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 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 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.”
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
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 38
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 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. ”
30. The Special Leave Petition, SLP No. 29301 of 2024, filed
against the above judgment was dismissed on 28.04.2025.
31. A comparison of the pleadings and the reliefs/ repetition of
reliefs sought in W.P(C) 30885/2024 and W.P(C) 42050/2024 are as follows:
Common Reliefs:
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 39Sl. Relief Description (20 WPC 42050/2024 WPC 30885/2024
No. RELIEF) (a to t) – Relief No. – relief number1 Declaration that Notification (a), (b) (a), (j)
dated 29.05.2015 (S.O.
1432(E)) is binding and must
be implemented2 To grant a perpetual (c), (m) (b) (k)
mandatory and/or
prohibitory injunction
directing the Central
Government and RBI to
enforce the notification
dated 29.05.2015 in full and
to ensure recall of recovery
actions taken against the
Petitioners in violation
thereof, with restoration of
status quo and full
compensation.
3 Declaration that (d), (e), (f) (c) (d), (e)
SARFAESI/RDB/IBC recovery
actions in violation of
MSMED Notification are void4 Declare that in the absence (g) (f)
of a special forum under the
MSMED Act, the jurisdiction
of civil courts is not ousted,
and DRTs/NCLTs have no
authority to adjudicate
disputes arising under the
said Act.
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 40
5. Declare that the Bank’s (h) (g)
recovery under
SARFAESI/RDB Act is void,
recovery being permissible
only through the Corrective
Action Plan under
Notification dated
29.05.2015.
6 Declare that the Petitioners (j) (h)
are entitled to compensation
for the Bank’s wrongful acts,
and no dues are enforceable
against them.
7. Declare that the RBI (k) (i)
guidelines permitting banks
to designate borrowers as
willful defaulters are without
authority of law and
unenforceable.
8. Declare the entire SARFAESI (n) (l)
recovery proceedings,
including possession and sale
of the Petitioners’
properties, as illegal, void ab
initio, and vitiated by fraud,
and quash the same.
9 Declare that Section 80 of (r) (p)
the CPC, to the extent it
mandates 60 days’ prior
notice before instituting a
suit against the Government,
is unconstitutional and void
as it denies access to justice,
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 41
especially for the weaker
sections of society.
10 Declare that the proviso to (s) (q)
Section 113 CPC is
unconstitutional as it
unjustly curtails the civil
court's jurisdiction to decide
constitutional questions.
11 Grant a perpetual injunction (o) (m)
restraining respondents
from initiating any recovery
action under SARFAESI, IBC,
or other laws, and from
dispossessing the Petitioners
of their properties.
12 Grant a perpetual mandatory (p) (n)
injunction directing the
respondent bank to
constitute a Committee and
resolve the stress in the
Petitioners' MSME unit as
per the RBI notification
dated 29.5.2015.
13. Grant a perpetual mandatory (q) (o)
injunction directing
respondents to cancel the
NPA classification and
SARFAESI proceedings, and
to revive the Petitioners'
business as per the 29.5.2015
MSME notification.
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 42
32. Distinct Reliefs Specific to WPC 42050/2024
Sl. Relief Description
No.
1 Declare that the Petitioners are entitled to credit and set-off of
the ₹5 crores received by the Bank under the ECGC policy, which
was wrongfully kept in a suspense account despite covering the
insured default.
2 Declare that the prior writ petitions and proceedings detailed in
Exhibit P12 do not constitute cause of action estoppel, res
judicata, or issue estoppel, as there was no adjudication on merits
and no estoppel against statute.
The petitioners, thus knowing that very same reliefs claimed earlier are
again being repeated and that this Court by judgment referred to above
had dismissed the said writ petitions, has now included a prayer for a
declaration that the prior writ petition’s proceedings do not constitute a
cause of action estoppel, res judicata or issue estoppel as there was no
adjudication on merits and there is no estoppel against a statute.
33. As regards the above prayer, the same has to fail for multiple
reasons. It is trite that even an erroneous decision on a question of law
operates as res judicata between the parties to it. A two-judge Bench of
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 43
the Supreme Court in Kalinga Mining Corpn. v. Union of India, (2013 5 SCC
252), held that there is ample authority for the proposition that even an
erroneous decision on a question of law operates as res judicata between
the parties to it. The correctness or otherwise of a judicial decision has no
bearing upon the question whether or not it operates as a res judicata. It
was held that a wrong decision by a court having jurisdiction is as much
binding between the parties as a right one and may be superseded only by
appeals to higher tribunals or other procedure like review which the law
provides for. What is res judicata between the parties is not the reasoning
or any principle of law, but the actual decision declaring the rights of the
parties. When a matter, whether concerning fact or law, has been directly
and substantially at issue between the parties as bearing on their rights,
the decision thereon, provided other conditions are satisfied, will operate
as res judicata, concluding those rights. Section 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure says nothing particular about points of law or pure points of
law or the same or different causes of action.
34. Again, the principles of res judicata were elaborately
discussed in Canara Bank v. N.G. Subbaraya Setty (2018 16 SCC 228), and
the conclusions are as follows:
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 44“34. Given the conspectus of authorities that have been referred to by us
hereinabove, the law on the subject may be stated as follows:
34.1. The general rule is that all issues that arise directly and substantially in a
former suit or proceeding between the same parties are res judicata in a
subsequent suit or proceeding between the same parties. These would include
issues of fact, mixed questions of fact and law, and issues of law.
34.2. To this general proposition of law, there are certain exceptions when it
comes to issues of law:
34.2.1. Where an issue of law decided between the same parties in a former suit or
proceeding relates to the jurisdiction of the Court, an erroneous decision in the
former suit or proceeding is not res judicata in a subsequent suit or proceeding
between the same parties, even where the issue raised in the second suit or
proceeding is directly and substantially the same as that raised in the former suit
or proceeding. This follows from a reading of Section 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure itself, for the Court which decides the suit has to be a Court competent
to try such suit. When read with Explanation (I) to Section 11, it is obvious that
both the former as well as the subsequent suit need to be decided in Courts
competent to try such suits, for the “former suit” can be a suit instituted after the
first suit, but which has been decided prior to the suit which was instituted
earlier. An erroneous decision as to the jurisdiction of a Court cannot clothe that
Court with jurisdiction where it has none. Obviously, a Civil Court cannot send a
person to jail for an offence committed under the Indian Penal Code. If it does so,
such a judgment would not bind a Magistrate and/or Sessions Court in a
subsequent proceeding between the same parties, where the Magistrate sentences
the same person for the same offence under the Penal Code. Equally, a Civil Court
cannot decide a suit between a landlord and a tenant arising out of the rights
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 45claimed under a Rent Act, where the Rent Act clothes a special Court with
jurisdiction to decide such suits. As an example, under Section 28 of the Bombay
Rent Act, 1947, the Small Causes Court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and
decide proceedings between a landlord and a tenant in respect of rights which
arise out of the Bombay Rent Act, and no other Court has jurisdiction to embark
upon the same. In this case, even though the Civil Court, in the absence of the
statutory bar created by the Rent Act, would have jurisdiction to decide such
suits, it is the statutory bar created by the Rent Act that must be given effect to
as a matter of public policy. (See, Natraj Studios (P) Ltd. v. Navrang Studios &
Anr., (1981) 2 SCR 466 at 482). An erroneous decision clothing the Civil Court with
jurisdiction to embark upon a suit filed by a landlord against a tenant, in respect
of rights claimed under the Bombay Rent Act, would, therefore, not operate as res
judicata in a subsequent suit filed before the Small Causes Court between the
same parties in respect of the same matter directly and substantially in issue in
the former suit.
34.2.2. An issue of law which arises between the same parties in a subsequent suit
or proceeding is not res judicata if, by an erroneous decision given on a statutory
prohibition in the former suit or proceeding, the statutory prohibition is not given
effect to. This is despite the fact that the matter in issue between the parties may
be the same as that directly and substantially in issue in the previous suit or
proceeding. This is for the reason that in such cases, the rights of the parties are
not the only matter for consideration (as is the case of an erroneous
interpretation of a statute inter parties), as the public policy contained in the
statutory prohibition cannot be set at naught. This is for the same reason as that
contained in matters which pertain to issues of law that raise jurisdictional
questions. We have seen how, in Natraj Studios (supra), it is the public policy of
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 46the statutory prohibition contained in Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act that has
to be given effect to. Likewise, the public policy contained in other statutory
prohibitions, which need not necessarily go to jurisdiction of a Court, must
equally be given effect to, as otherwise special principles of law are fastened upon
parties when special considerations relating to public policy mandate that this
cannot be done.
34.3. Another exception to this general rule follows from the matter in issue being
an issue of law different from that in the previous suit or proceeding. This can
happen when the issue of law in the second suit or proceeding is based on
different facts from the matter directly and substantially in issue in the first suit
or proceeding. Equally, where the law is altered by a competent authority since
the earlier decision, the matter in issue in the subsequent suit or proceeding is
not the same as in the previous suit or proceeding, because the law to be
interpreted is different.”
35. The present prayer for declaration, not asked for earlier, also
has to be declined on the ground of constructive res judicata. In
Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd. & Anr. v. The Janapada Sabha, Chhindwara
[1963 (Supp.)(1) SCR 172] and later, in Devilal Modi v. Sales Tax Officer,
Ratlam & Others [1965(1) SCR 636] it was held that if the doctrine of
constructive res judicata was not applied to writ proceedings, it would be
open to a party to take one proceeding after another and urge new
grounds every time, which was plainly inconsistent with the
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 47considerations of public policy.
36. On a careful consideration of the legal propositions noted
above, it is clear that the petitioners’ attempt to reopen issues already
considered and rejected in earlier proceedings is squarely barred by the
principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata. The contention
that raising additional legal grounds or slight variations in relief entitles
them to maintain fresh writ petitions ignores settled law that even an
erroneous decision on a question of law binds the parties unless reversed
in appeal or set aside by a competent forum. As stated above, the
correctness of a previous judicial decision is irrelevant for the application
of res judicata; what matters is whether the issue was directly and
substantially in issue and finally decided between the parties. This
principle was reiterated in Canara Bank (supra), where the Supreme Court
clarified that issues of law, fact, or mixed questions, once decided, operate
as res judicata unless they fall within narrow exceptions like lack of
jurisdiction or overriding statutory prohibition.
37. None of the exceptions to the application of res judicata, such
as jurisdictional errors or subsequent change in law, are attracted here.
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 48
The legal regime under SARFAESI and the RBI MSME circulars remains the
same, and the reliefs sought in the current batch of petitions are
substantially the same as those rejected in the earlier rounds. The Court
cannot entertain repetitive litigation solely because the party rephrases
their challenge or invokes constitutional provisions already addressed.
Therefore, the petitions are barred by res judicata, and the doctrine
applies with full force in the present context to prevent multiplicity of
proceedings and to uphold the finality of judicial determinations.
38. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Celir LLP v. Sumati
Prasad Bafna and Ors. (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3727), which relied on the
decisions in State of U.P. v. Nawab Hussain [(1977) 2 SCC 806], Devilal Modi
v. Sales Tax Officer, Ratlam and Ors [AIR 1965 SC 1150], and the English
decision in Greenhalgh v. Mallard [(1947) All ER 255 at p.257], to hold that
where the same set of facts give rise to multiple causes of action, a litigant
cannot be permitted to agitate one cause in one proceeding and reserve
the other for future litigation. Such fragmentation aggravates the burden
of litigation and is impermissible in law. The Court reiterated that all
claims and grounds of defence or attack which could and ought to have
been raised in earlier proceedings are barred from being re-agitated
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 49
subsequently. This rule stems from the Henderson Principle, which, as a
corollary of constructive res judicata embodied in Explanation VII to
Section 11 CPC, mandates that a party must bring forward the entirety of
its case in one proceeding and not in a piecemeal or selective manner.
Courts must examine whether a matter could and should have been raised
earlier, taking into account the scope of the earlier proceedings and their
nexus to the controversy at hand.
39. If the subject matter or seminal issues in a later proceeding
are substantially similar or connected to those already adjudicated, the
subsequent proceeding amounts to relitigation. Once a cause of action has
been judicially determined, all issues fundamental to that cause are
deemed to have been conclusively decided, and attempts to revisit any
part of it — even through formal distinctions in forums or pleadings — fall
foul of the principle. Moreover, any plea or issue that was raised earlier
and then abandoned is deemed waived and cannot be resurrected. The
overarching object is to protect the finality of adjudications, discourage
strategic or delayed litigation, and uphold judicial propriety and fairness
by ensuring that parties do not approbate and reprobate or exploit
procedural plurality to unsettle concluded controversies.
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 50
40. Even on merits, the contention of the petitioners that their
MSME registration, obtained prior to NPA classification, automatically
entitles them to protection under the notification dated 29.05.2015 is
legally untenable. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pro Knits v.
Canara Bank (supra), it is the obligation of the borrower to disclose its
MSME status with authenticated and verifiable documents before the loan
account is classified as a Non-Performing Asset. Failure to do so disentitles
the borrower from invoking the statutory framework at a belated stage to
obstruct recovery under the SARFAESI Act.
41. A learned Single Judge in M.D. Esthappan v. Reserve Bank of
India (MANU/KE/0723/2025) rejected the very argument that MSME
classification, by itself, precludes NPA classification or recovery action,
observing that the petitioners had taken no timely steps to activate the
revival mechanism. This view was affirmed by the Division Bench in M.D.
Esthappan v. Reserve Bank of India (supra), which held that a borrower
who fails to notify the bank of its MSME status prior to classification as
NPA cannot later seek to invalidate proceedings under SARFAESI on that
basis. The Court categorically observed that the law laid down in Pro Knits
precludes such delayed assertion, and that borrowers cannot remain
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 51
passive through the recovery process and seek to revive lapsed remedies
at a convenient stage. The delayed claim of MSME status, without
informing the bank in time or taking steps to start the corrective action
process, cannot be accepted. Thus, the petitioners’ contentions cannot be
accepted given the judgments suffered by the petitioner, including in WPC
number 30885/2024, and based on the principles of law laid down by the
Supreme Court in Pro Knits (supra), M.D. Esthappan (supra) and P.K.
Krishna Kumar (supra).
42. It is also pertinent to note that the Petitioner had given
before this court an undertaking in IA No. 1/2024 in W.P(C) No. 19103/2024
that he will deposit an amount of Rs. 2 crores within the stipulated time,
failing which he shall withdraw all cases and surrender possession of the
purported secured asset. The undertaking is as follows:
“The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala had taken the said W.P.C No. 19103 of
2024along with W.P.C No. 10785/2024 for admission hearing on 10/06/2024.
During the course of hearing , this honourable court had directed me to
swear an affidavit stating that I shall remit an amount of Rupees 2 Crore on
or before 30/06/2024 in regard to the instant subject matter in W.P.C No.
19103 of 2024 along with W.P.C No. 10785/2024. This affidavit s sworn in to
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 52put on record that I shall pay Rupees 2 crore on or before 30/06/2024.”
43. On the question of giving undertakings to the Court, the Apex
Court in Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik and Another v. PradnyaPrakash [(2017) 5
SCC 496] held as follows:
“10. The filing of such an undertaking does not deprive the
litigant of the remedy to question the judgment of the High
Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. Such a situation
must, however, be distinguished from a case (such as the
present) where a litigant rests content with seeking time to
vacate the premises and the circumstances of the case indicate
that the litigant did not intend to pursue any further remedy
before this Court to assail the judgment of the High Court.
Having furnished an unconditional undertaking to vacate the
premises, it would be manifestly an abuse of the process for the
petitioners to seek recourse to their remedies on the merits of
the issues which arose in the First Appeal.
13. This Court must view with disfavour any attempt by a
litigant to abuse the process. The sanctity of the judicial
process will be seriously eroded if such attempts are not dealt
with firmly. A litigant who takes liberties with the truth or
with the procedures of the Court should be left in no doubt
about the consequences to follow. Others should not venture
along the same path in the hope or on a misplaced expectation
of judicial leniency. Exemplary costs are inevitable, and even
necessary, in order to ensure that in litigation, as in the law
which is practised in our country, there is no premium on the
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 53truth”.
44. A review of the petitioners’ litigation history, as disclosed
through the table of previously filed cases, reveals a pattern of piecemeal,
repetitive filings seeking substantially similar reliefs in respect of the
same loan accounts and SARFAESI proceedings. In Celir LLP v. Bafna
Motors (supra), the Supreme Court applied the Henderson principle,
stating that litigation tactics involving the fragmentation of claims or the
reintroduction of issues that could and should have been raised earlier
constitute abuse of process. The Court emphasised that even where claims
are not strictly barred by res judicata, proceedings are liable to be
dismissed if they are vexatious, repetitive, or designed to obstruct the
finality of judicial outcomes. The present petitions are a clear example of
such abuse, especially when read in the context of the entire sequence of
proceedings. Repeatedly approaching the court with slightly altered
formulations or new legal tags does not change the fact that the
petitioners seek to revive claims that have already been decided or could
have been resolved earlier. The conduct adopted here undermines judicial
discipline and denies access to justice for genuine litigants.
45. W.P(C) No.4389/2025 was filed contending that during the
pendency of W.P(C) No.42050/2024, the Magistrate should not have
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 54
exercised jurisdiction under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and, therefore,
the passing of orders under Section 14 was bad. That apart, the prayers
which are sought for in this writ petition are substantially the same as
those which have been sought in W.P(C) 42050/2024. Accordingly, no
separate orders are required to be passed in this writ petition.
46. Con. Case (C) No.3402/2024 is filed alleging that when the
hearing in W.P(C) No.42050/2024 was going on, the bank took possession
of the secured asset, which was a contumacious contempt of the Court. It is
relevant to reproduce the order passed by this Court on 19.12.2024 in
W.P(C) No.42050/2024, which reads thus:-
“Counsel for the petitioners submits that this writ
petition was heard yesterday. The case was adjourned to
today for further hearing. In the meantime, physical
possession of the 2nd petitioner’s residential home has
been forcibly taken over by the Bank. In such
circumstances, this Court is bound to direct the Bank to
restore possession.
2. Advocate Mathew J. Nedumpara submitted that
further hearing of the case can be only after the contempt
is purged.
3. I find that though oral prayer for interim order was
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 55made yesterday, this Court was not inclined to grant an
interim order yesterday. I am not inclined to pass interim
order or restoration order today either.”
Given the above order passed by this Court on 19.12.2024, I am not inclined
to proceed further in Cont. Case (C) No.3402/2024 and the same will stand
dismissed.
47. As regards the submissions of Sri. Ashwin Gopakumar in
W.P(C) No. 8287/2025, it has to be noticed that the essential contention
raised therein is that the bank could not have proceeded against the
secured assets because of the bar created under Section 31 of the
Securitisation Act. This contention, that the actions of the secured creditor
are against the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, can be urged in a
Securitisation Application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Under such
circumstances, I am not inclined to pass any orders in that writ petition.
The same will stand dismissed, subject to the liberty granted.
48. It is also to be noticed that the cost imposed on the petitioner in
W.P(C) 30885/2024 has not been paid, and the subsequent proceedings
have been initiated. Though this case eminently warrants the imposition
of exemplary costs, I refrain from doing so, mindful of the fact that the
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 56
petitioners are already burdened under a mountain of troubles.
49. In view of the above findings, these writ petitions are only to be
dismissed. However, the dismissal of the writ petitions will not preclude
the petitioners from pursuing their remedies in the pending Securitisation
Application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal concerned.
The writ petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
JUDGE
okb
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 57
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4389/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A COPY OF THE UDYAM CERTIFICATE NO. UDYAM-
KL-07-0000886, DATED 01-10-2020, ISSUED TO
THE PETITIONER NO. 1 BY THE MSME MINISTRY,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Exhibit P2 A COPY OF THE MSME NOTIFICATION NO. S.O.1432
(E) DATED 29.05.2015, ISSUED BY THE MSME
MINISTRY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Exhibit P3 A COPY OF THE RBI NOTIFICATION NO. RBI
NOTIFICATION NO. FIDD.MSME & NFS.BC.NO.
21/06.02.31 /2015-16, DATED 17.03.2016
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED
09.06.2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO
THE PETITIONERS
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED
01.09.2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO
THE PETITIONERS
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ISSUE SALE-NOTICE DATED
06.09.2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO
THE PETITIONERS
Exhibit P7 A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.04.2024 SENT
BY THE PETITIONER NO. 2 TO THE RESPONDENT-
BANK
Exhibit P8 A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.10.2022 BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06.12.2022
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONERS
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03.01.2023,
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONERS
Exhibit P11 A COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. S.O 2119 (E)
DATED 26.6.2020 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA
Exhibit P12 A CHART DETAILING THE VARIOUS PROCEEDINGS
INITIATED BY THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P13 A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.10.2024 I.A NO.
1 OF 2024 IN W.P (C) NO. 30885/2024
Exhibit P14 A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.10.2024 IN W.A
NO. 1730/2024
Exhibit P15 A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.11.2024 IN
WP (C) NO.30885/2024
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 58
Exhibit P16 A TRUE COPY OF PART BI- FRAMEWORK FOR
RESOLUTION OF STRESSED ASSETS OF THE SAID
NOTIFICATION WHICH SPEAKS ABOUT RESOLUTION
OF STRESS FOR ALL LOAN ACCOUNTS
Exhibit P17 A COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BY THE
PETITIONER DATED 18-11-2024
Exhibit P18 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15-01-2025 IN
SLP NO. 912/2025, OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME
COURT
Exhibit P19 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 17-01-
2025 IN M.C. NO. 745/2022, OF THE CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA,
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 59
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8287/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.
17/06/2019:PER:EOU:KL:CSEZ/424 DATED
21.01.2021 ISSUED BY THE DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSIONER COCHIN CSEZ
Exhibit P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE BEARING F.
NO. KTYM/RO/SARFAESI/14/21-22 DATED
09.06.2021 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2
Exhibit P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED
01.09.2022 IN RESPECT OF PROPERTIES SITUATED
IN ALAPPUZHA AND KOTTAYAM DISTRICTS
Exhibit P-4 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 22.11.2024 IN
WP(C) NO. 30885 OF 2024
Exhibit P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.02.2025 IN
CONTEMPT CASE (C) NO. 3402 OF 2024 RESERVING
THE LIBERTY OF THE PETITIONERS TO APPROACH
THE BANK WITH A PROPOSAL
Exhibit P-6 TRUE COPIES OF ORDERS DATED 21.02.2025 IN
W.P(C) NO.42050/2024
Exhibit P-7 TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE ORDER DATED
14.02.2025 RAISED ON KALPAKA PROCESSING CO
Exhibit P-8 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 22.01.2025 SENT
BY A PRINCIPAL OFFICER OF WEBB JAMES SRL
Exhibit P-9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 08.01.2025 SENT
BY PETITIONER NO.1
Exhibit P-10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.01.2025
DIRECTING PETITIONER NO.1 TO REMOVE THE
MOVABLE PROPERTIES AVAILABLE INSIDE THE
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING IN RE. SY. NO.282/3
NEELAMPEROOR VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA ON
10.02.2025
Exhibit P-11 TRUE COPY OF REPLY NOTICE DATED 10.02.2025
ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER NO. 1
Exhibit P-12 TRUE COPY OF E-AUCTION SALE NOTICE BEARING
NO. RO-KYTM/0764/SALE/SH/1463/2024-25 DATED
18.02.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF FLIGHT TICKET SHOWING THE
TRAVEL UNDERTAKEN BY THE PETITIONERS FROM
HOUSTON TO KOCHI VIA MUSCAT
Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF ADVANCE DEPOSIT RECEIPT
ISSUED BY IBIS HOTEL DATED 11.02.2025
Exhibit P15 A TRUE COPY OF HOTEL INVOICE ISSUED BY
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 60
BHARAT HOTEL DATED 18.02.2025 AND 19.02.2025
Exhibit P16 A TRUE COPY OF HOTEL INVOICE ISSUED BY
MAKEMYTRIP DATED 20.02.2025 EVIDENCING
BOOKING AND STAY AT AARIYAAS VISTA
Exhibit P17 A TRUE COPY OF RENTAL RECEIPT ISSUED BY
AGRAHARA HOMES FROM 21.02.2025 TO 16.04.2025
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 61
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 42050/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A COPY OF THE UDYAM CERTIFICATE NO. UDYAM-
KL-07-0000886, DATED 01-10-2020, ISSUED TO
THE PETITIONER NO. 1 BY THE MSME MINISTRY,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
Exhibit P2 A COPY OF THE MSME NOTIFICATION NO. S.O.1432
(E) DATED 29.05.2015, ISSUED BY THE MSME
MINISTRY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Exhibit P3 A COPY OF THE RBI NOTIFICATION NO. RBI
NOTIFICATION NO. FIDD.MSME & NFS.BC.NO.
21/06.02.31 /2015-16, DATED 17.03.2016
Exhibit P4 . A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED
09.06.2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO
THE PETITIONERS
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED
01.09.2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO
THE PETITIONERS
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE-NOTICE DATED
06.09.2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO
THE PETITIONERS,
Exhibit P7 A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.04.2024 SENT
BY THE PETITIONER NO. 2 TO THE RESPONDENT-
BANK
Exhibit P8 A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.10.2022 BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06.12.2022
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONERS
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03.01.2023,
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONERS
Exhibit P11 A COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. S.O 2119 (E)
DATED 26.6.2020 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA
Exhibit P12 A CHART DETAILING THE VARIOUS PROCEEDINGS
INITIATED BY THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P13 A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.10.2024 IN I.A
NO. 1 OF 2024 IN W.P (C) NO. 30885/2024
Exhibit P14 A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.10.2024 IN
W.A NO. 1730/2024
Exhibit P15 A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.11.2024 IN
WP (C) NO.30885/2024
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 62
Exhibit P16 A TRUE COPY OF PART BI- FRAMEWORK FOR
RESOLUTION OF STRESSED ASSETS OF THE SAID
NOTIFICATION WHICH SPEAKS ABOUT RESOLUTION
OF STRESS FOR ALL LOAN ACCOUNTS
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R3(a) True copy of the memorandum of writ petition
WPC No. 30885 of 2024 (without exhibits)
dated 30.8.2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P17 A COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BY THE
PETITIONER DATED 18-11-2024
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R3(b) True copy of the counter affidavit dated
10.9.2024 filed by 3rd Respondent in WPC No.
30885 of 2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
POWER OF ATTORNEY POWER OF ATTORNEY
Exhibit P18 A TRUE COPY THE LETTER DATED 18/12/2024 SENT
BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P19 THE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 25/07/2019 BY
THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK, CHINGAVANAM BRANCH
Exhibit P20 THE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 02/06/2020 BY
THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK, CHINGAVANAM BRANCH
2025:KER:55399
W.P(C) Nos.42050/24, 4389/25
8287/25 & ConCase (C).3402/24 63
APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 3402/2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS DATED 18/12/2024