Kerala High Court
M/S. Sark Spice Products Pvt. Ltd vs Reserve Bank Of India on 22 November, 2024
Author: D. K. Singh
Bench: D. K. Singh
2024:KER:87801
WP(C) NO. 30885 OF 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. K. SINGH
FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 30885 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 M/S. SARK SPICE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HAVING ITS
REGISTERED ADDRESS AT TAK INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX, EARA NORTH,
NEELAMPEROOR, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 686534
2 ABRAHAM T. KURUVILA @ T.A. KURUVILA,
AGED 72 YEARS
S/O. LATE T.C. ABRAHAM, CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SARK SPICE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., THURUTHITHARA HOUSE, EARA
NORTH P.O., NEELAMPEROOR, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA, PIN - 686534
BY ADVS.
MARIA NEDUMPARA
SHAMEEM FAYIZ V.P.
RESPONDENTS:
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 THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO &MANAGING DIRECTOR, SIB HOUSE,
T.B. ROAD, MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN -
2024:KER:87801
WP(C) NO. 30885 OF 2024
2
680001
4 AUTHORISED OFFICER & CHIEF MANAGER,
SOUTH INDIAN BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM, 1ST FLOOR,
REGENCY SQUARE, K.K ROAD, COLLECTORATE P.O.,
KOTTAYAM,KERALA, PIN - 686002
5 MINISTRY OF MICRO SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.UDYOG BHAWAN, RAFI MARG, NEW
DELHI, PIN - 110001
6 UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL
SERVICES, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, 3RD FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP
BUILDING, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
7 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
BY ADVS.
Sunil Shankar A
VIDYA GANGADHARAN(K/000424/2020)
ANGEL YESUDASAN(K/1748/2024)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
13.11.2024, THE COURT ON 22.11.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:87801
WP(C) NO. 30885 OF 2024
3
JUDGMENT
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.
2. The 1st petitioner has been availing various banking facilities from the 2nd respondent, including term loans and overdraft loans. When the petitioners failed to discharge its liabilities in terms of the loan agreements, the respondent Bank classified the loan accounts of the petitioners as NPA on 24.03.2021 and issued a demand notice dated 09.06.2021 recalling the loans and demanding full payment of the entire outstanding amount in respect of all the loans and credit facilities advanced by the respondent Bank. As the petitioners fail to make the payment in terms of the demand notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, the possession notice 2024:KER:87801 WP(C) NO. 30885 OF 2024 4 dated 16.03.2022 was issued for taking symbolic possession of the properties given as security by the borrowers and the guarantors. Thereafter, the sale notice dated 06.09.2022 was issued for the sale of the secured assets by conducting a public auction. The respondent Bank also instituted O.A No. 242/2021 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam against the petitioners. The petitioners filed S.A No. 77/2023 before the DRT-II, Ernakulam challenging the SARFAESI proceedings initiated by the respondent Bank. The interlocutory application filed by the petitioners, along with the SA, was dismissed by the Tribunal.
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 2024:KER:87801 WP(C) NO. 30885 OF 2024 5 loan accounts of the petitioners as NPA, and therefore, all further proceedings thereafter are nullity and liable to be quashed.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the notification S.O No. 1432(E) dated 29.05.2015 issued by the Ministry of MSME, Government of India, provides for a framework for the treatment to be extended to MSME borrowers suffering from incipient stress. The aforesaid notification issued in exercise of powers conferred under Section 9 of MSMED Act mandates all creditors and financial institutions;
(a) the constitution of a Committee for stressed MSMEs,
(b) identification and classification of loan accounts of MSME borrowers, based on the extent of default in repayment of the loan,
(c) consideration by the said Committee of the possibility of revival or restructuring of the loan-accounts, and
(d) direction for recovery measures only if revival and restructuring is not feasible. In the instant case the Respondent No. 2 Bank did not extend any opportunity for revival and rehabilitation of the Petitioner No. 1 as provided in the MSME Notification
5.It is submitted that in the present case, the respondent Bank did not extend any opportunity for revival and 2024:KER:87801 WP(C) NO. 30885 OF 2024 6 rehabilitation to the 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.
6.It is further submitted that the RBI issued a circular dated 17.03.2016, providing a framework for the revival and rehabilitation of MSME, mandating the financial institutions and creditors to proceed in accordance with the provisions of the said circular.
7.The Banks or creditors are duty-bound to identify the incipient stress in the account, before a loan account of MSME transits to a Non-Performing Asset. It is further provided that all Banks and financial institutions having exposure to the MSME sector are required to constitute a committee at each District, where they are present or at a divisional level or regional office 2024:KER:87801 WP(C) NO. 30885 OF 2024 7 level, depending upon the number of MSME units financed in the region. These committees would resolve the reported stress of MSME accounts borrowers, of the branched falling under their jurisdiction
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid binding circular of the RBI was not followed as no committee was constituted by the respondent Bank to examine incipient stress in the loan accounts of the petitioners.
9.It is further submitted that a detailed mechanism has been provided for a corrective action plan for stressed MSMEs. The purpose of the Act and the notification is to revive the MSME and restructure the stressed account of the borrower which would include;
(a) Rectification (provides for additional need base financing if considered necessary)
(b) Restructuring, 2024:KER:87801 WP(C) NO. 30885 OF 2024 8
(c) Recovery - i.e., availing the legal recourse and recovery options if and only if the first two options are not feasible
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.
12.The learned counsel for the respondent Bank further submits that this Court, in previous writ petitions, did not countenance the attempt of the petitioner to challenge the securitization measures. The DRT-II Ernakulam had dismissed the application for interim relief in the securitization application 2024:KER:87801 WP(C) NO. 30885 OF 2024 9 filed by the petitioners, and the appeal against the said order was also dismissed. The petitioners have also filed a suit in the Civil Court, Mumbai, with the RBI as the first defendant. It is, therefore, submitted that the attempt on behalf of the petitioners is nothing but a gross abuse of the process of the court to avoid the securitization measures by the Bank for securing its outstanding dues.
13.The learned counsel for the respondent bank has also submitted that the first petitioner is a private limited company, and the second petitioner is the Chairman and Managing Director of the first petitioner. The following financial facilities were availed by the petitioners.
(i) Cash credit facility (hereinafter CCOL) of Rs. 1.40 Crores
(ii) Overdraft (OD) (hereinafter referred to as OD) of Rs. 20 Lakhs 2024:KER:87801 WP(C) NO. 30885 OF 2024 10
(iii) Packing Credit Limit (hereinafter referred to as PCL) of Rs. 4 Crores (iv) Foreign Bill Purchase Facility (hereinafter FBP) of Rs. 4 Crores
(v) Term Loan (hereinafter referred to as TL 1) of Rs. 58 Lakhs
(vi) Term Loan (hereinafter referred to as TL 2) of Rs. 50 Lakhs
14. The aforesaid credit and financial securities were secured by mortgaging the properties, details of which are given in Ext.P4 demand notice dated 09.06.2021. The loan accounts of the petitioners turned NPA on 24.03.2021 with effect from 20.10.2020. The petitioners replied to the demand notice issued under Section 13(2) vide the reply dated 09.08.2021. The Bank had filed the original application, OA No.242/2021 before the DRT-II for recovery of an amount of Rs.11,90,04,306.54/- together with interest from 14.06.2021. The total outstanding as on 09.09.2024 was Rs.11,54,82,683.38/-.
2024:KER:87801 WP(C) NO. 30885 OF 2024 11
15.The petitioners have also approached the Banks to settle their liability under the One Time Settlement Scheme. The petitioners, vide the letter dated 22.09.2021, submitted A one- time settlement proposal for Rs.10 Crores. The said proposal to settle the liability at Rs.10 Crores was accepted by the Bank vide the letter dated 06.12.2021, subject to the payment terms stipulated in the acceptance of the proposal. The petitioners defaulted on the payment terms as per the terms of the OTS sanction for settling the outstanding dues, and therefore, the possession notice was issued in respect of the property situated in Alappuzha on 16.03.2022. The petitioners challenged the said possession notice in W.P(C)No.9509 of 2022, and the petitioners undertook to make the payment under the OTS Scheme before 31.03.2022, but the same was not paid.
16. Pending the aforesaid writ petition on request of the petitioners, the Bank had approved the revised OTS vide the sanction letter dated 17.06.2022, providing for payment of delayed period interest to original OTS for making the payment 2024:KER:87801 WP(C) NO. 30885 OF 2024 12 along with interest by 30.9.2022. This court, vide the judgment dated 11.07.2022, disposed of the W.P(C)No. 9509 of 2022, permitting the petitioner to approach the bank for settlement. The petitioner thereafter filed another W.P(C)No. 28659 of 2022 before this Court seeking a direction from this court to accept the OTS amount if paid before 30.09.2022.
17. As the liability was not discharged, the Authorized Officer issued a possession notice dated 01.09.2022 in respect of the properties situated in Alappuzha. A possession notice dated 01.09.2022 was also issued in respect of the properties in Kottayam. The petitioners did not make the payment of the OTS amount on or before 30.09.2022, and therefore, the Bank cancelled the OTS vide the letter dated 10.10.2022. This court disposed of W.P(C) No.28659 of 2022 vide the judgment dated 13.10.2022 directing respondent Bank to consider the request for extension of the OTS. The request of the petitioners for an extension of the OTS was rejected by the Bank vide the letter dated 17.10.2022.
2024:KER:87801 WP(C) NO. 30885 OF 2024 13
18. Proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act were initiated in MC No. 745/2022 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Alappuzha for taking physical possession of the secured asset situated in Alappuzha. The petitioners thereafter filed SA No. 77 of 2023 before the DRT-II Ernakulam along with stay application I.A No.464/2023 which was dismissed on 02.03.2023. The petitioners approached this Court in OP DRT No.122/2023 challenging the dismissal of the stay application. This court, vide the interim order dated 17.03.2023, granted a stay subject to remittance of Rs.1.5 Crores on or before 30.03.2023. The petitioners complied with the said interim direction issued by this Court by making payment although belatedly. The said OP DRT came to be dismissed by this court on 25.05.2023, relegating the petitioners to approach the DRAT, and the coercive proceedings were kept in abeyance for a period of ten days. The petitioners thereafter filed the appeal in AIR No. 712/2023 along with an application for waiver of statutory pre- deposit. The petitioners thereafter approached this Court in OP 2024:KER:87801 WP(C) NO. 30885 OF 2024 14 DRT No. 232/2023 seeking directions to the DRAT to consider the appeal and the applications. This court, vide the judgment dated 19.06.2023, disposed of the OP DRT No. 232/2023, directing the DRAT to dispose of the wavier application within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment and, till such time, defer the coercive proceedings.
19. The DRAT, by proceedings dated 03.10.2023, disposed of the waiver application directing the petitioner to deposit the minimum 25% within a period of two weeks, i.e. on or before 17.10.2023. The petitioner did not comply with the said direction and filed another I.A No. 423/2023 for extension of time. The DRAT vide the proceedings dated 18.10.2023 extended the time for payment by three weeks, i.e. on or before 08.11.2023. As the petitioners did not comply with the statutory requirement of making a minimum deposit of 25%, the appeal filed by the petitioners came to be dismissed on 09.11.2023.
20.The petitioners, thereafter, approached this Court by filing OP DRT No. 488/2023 impugning the proceedings dated 2024:KER:87801 WP(C) NO. 30885 OF 2024 15 09.11.2023 of the DRAT. The petitioner undertook to make the payment of the pre-deposit amount by 11.12.2023. However, they did not make the deposit, OP DRT No. 488/2023 was dismissed by this Court vide the judgment dated 05.01.2024. The petitioners thereafter filed W.P(C) No.7607/2024 seeking direction from this court to remit the outstanding amount in 25 equal monthly instalments. The petitioners also undertook to pay an upfront amount of Rs.30 Lakhs on or before 07.03.2024. However, they did not comply with the aforesaid undertaking, and the writ petition came to be dismissed vide the judgment dated 20.05.2024.
21.The petitioners filed W.P(C) No. 10785/2024 before this Court seeking direction from the respondent Bank to consider the restructuring proposal of the petitioners. However, the bank had rejected the said proposal during the pendency of the said W.P(C) No. 10785/2024 vide the letter dated 03.06.2024. This court dismissed the writ petition vide the judgment dated 12.06.2024. The petitioner thereafter filed another W.P(C) No. 2024:KER:87801 WP(C) NO. 30885 OF 2024 16 11138/2024, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide the judgment dated 30.05.2024. Another writ petition came to be filed by the petitioners as W.P(C) No.19103/2024, seeking a direction to the Bank to consider the OTS proposal dated 24.05.2024 submitted by the petitioners. The petitioners undertook before this court to remit an amount of Rs. 2 Crores on or before 30.06.2024 and if the petitioner could not remit the amount on or before 30.06.2024, they would withdraw from all the litigations challenging SARFAESI proceedings and they would evict from secured asset so as to enable the secured creditor to take the possession of the secured assets.
22. Considering the aforesaid undertaking on the affidavit, this court granted an interim order to defer the coercive proceedings against the petitioners until 01.07.2024. As the petitioners failed to comply with their own undertaking, this court, vide the judgment dated 01.07.2024, dismissed the writ petition.
2024:KER:87801 WP(C) NO. 30885 OF 2024 17
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 BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF CANARA BANK & ORS [ Civil Appeal No. 8332 of 2024 dated 01.08.2024], had held that an MSMEs' loan account, under the instructions contained in the notification dated 29.052015 r/w the directions issued by the RBI vide the notification dated 17.03.2016 referred to above, the Bank or the creditors are required to identify the incipient stress in the account of the MSMEs, before the loan account turned into NPA. The framework under the aforesaid two notifications 2024:KER:87801 WP(C) NO. 30885 OF 2024 18 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.
2024:KER:87801 WP(C) NO. 30885 OF 2024 19 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 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 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 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 2024:KER:87801 WP(C) NO. 30885 OF 2024 20 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 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.
2024:KER:87801 WP(C) NO. 30885 OF 2024 21 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.
Sd/-
D. K. SINGH JUDGE SJ 2024:KER:87801 WP(C) NO. 30885 OF 2024 22 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30885/2024 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 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) 2024:KER:87801 WP(C) NO. 30885 OF 2024 23 DATED 26.6.2020 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R3(a) True copy of the letter of the 1st Petitioner dated 22.9.2021 Exhibit R3(b) True copy of the letter of the 3rd Respondent Bank dated 6.12.2021 Exhibit R3(c) True copy of the memorandum of writ petition in WP(C) No. 9509 of 2022 (without exhibits) before this Hon'ble Court dated 21.3.2022 Exhibit R3(d) True copy of the letter of the 3rd Respondent Bank dated 17.6.2022 Exhibit R3(e) True copy of the judgment dated 11.7.2022 in WP(C) No. 9509 of 2022 Exhibit R3(f) True copy of the memorandum of writ petition in WP(C) No. 28659 of 2022 (without exhibits) before this Hon'ble Court dated 31.8.2022 Exhibit R3(g) True copy of the judgment dated 13.10.2022 in WP(C) No. 28659 of 2022 of this Hon'ble Court Exhibit R3(h) True copy of the judgment of this Hon'ble Court dated 20.5.2024 in WP(C) No. 7607 of 2024 Exhibit R3(i) True copy of the representation dated 24.05.2024 by the Petitioner Exhibit R3(j) True copy of the letter dated 27.05.2024 of the 3rd Respondent Bank Exhibit R3(k) True copy of the letter dated 3.6.2024 of the 3rd Respondent Bank Exhibit R3(l) True copy of the letter dated 5.6.2024 of the 3rd Respondent Bank 2024:KER:87801 WP(C) NO. 30885 OF 2024 24 Exhibit R3(m) True copy of the judgment of this Hon'ble Court dated 12.6.2024 in WP(C). No. 10785 of 2024 Exhibit R3(n) True copy of IA No. 1 of 2024 in WP(C) No. 19103 of 2024 dated 11.06.2024 Exhibit R3(o) True copy of the judgment dated 1.7.2024 of this Hon'ble Court in WP(C) No. 19103 of 2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE CHART DETAILING THE VARIOUS PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P13 A COPY OF THE CIVIL SUIT NO. 18837/2024 SO INSTITUTED IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT, MUMBAI Exhibit P14 A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23-10-2024 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN IA NO.1/2024 IN WP(CIVIL) NO. 30885 /2024 Exhibit P15 A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23-10-2024 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WA NO.1730/2024