Kerala High Court
P.K Krishna Kumar vs Reserve Bank Of India on 20 November, 2024
Author: D. K. Singh
Bench: D. K. Singh
2024:KER:87018
WP(C) NO. 39924 OF 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. K. SINGH
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 29TH KARTHIKA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 39924 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
1 P.K KRISHNA KUMAR,
AGED 58 YEARS
MANAGING PARTNER, M/S POWERPLUS POWER UNIT ,22/1486,
PUTHALATH KRISHNAKRIPA,PALLURUTHY, EDA KOCHI, PIN -
682010
2 KALADEVI KRISHNA KUMAR,
AGED 56 YEARS
PARTNER, M/S POWERPLUS POWER UNIT 22/1486, PUTHALATH
KRISHNAKRIPA,PALLURUTHY, EDA KOCHI, PIN - 682010
BY ADVS.
MARIA NEDUMPARA
SHAMEEM FAYIZ V.P.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GOVERNOR, SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH ROAD,
FORT MUMBAI, PIN - 400001
2 EMPOWERED COMMITTEE ON MSMES,
REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL DIRECTORSOF THE RESERVE BANK
OF INDIA,RBI REGIONAL OFFICE,BAKERY JUNCTION, P.B. NO.
6507,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
3 THE CHAIRMAN,
STATE LEVEL INTER INSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE,RBI REGIONAL
OFFICE,BAKERY JUNCTION, P.B. NO. 6507,
2024:KER:87018
WP(C) NO. 39924 OF 2024
2
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
4 CHAIRMAN,
PRIME MINISTER'S TASK FORCE ON MSMES,PRIME MINISTER'S
OFFICE,SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
5 CHAIRMAN,
WORKING GROUP ON REHABILITATION OF SICK MSMES,RESERVE
BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI, PIN - 400001
6 WORKING GROUP ON REHABILITATION OF SICK MSMES ,RESERVE
BANK OF INDIA MUMBAI,
WORLD TRADE CENTRE COMPLEX, 6TH FLOOR CENTRE 1
BUILDING,WORLD TRADE CENTRE COMPLEX, CUFF PARADE, MUMBAI,
PIN - 400005
7 THE BRANCH MANAGER,
INDUSLND BANK,GOWRINARAYAN, 1ST FLOOR, OPP. JAYALAKSHMI
SILKS,M G ROAD, COCHIN, PIN - 682035
8 THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE INDUSLND BANK ,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,INDUSIND BANK
LIMITED, 2401 GEN. THIMMAYYA ROAD (CANTONMENT), PUNE, PIN
- 411001
9 AUTHORISED OFFICER,
INDUSLND BANK, GOWRINARAYAN, 1ST FLOOR, OPP. JAYALAKSHMI
SILKS,M G ROAD, COCHIN, PIN - 682035
10 UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF MICRO SMALL &
MEDIUM ENTERPRISES,UDYOG BHAWAN, RAFI MARG NEW DELHI, PIN
- 110001
11 SECRETARY, DEPT. OF BANKING,
MINISTRY OF FINANCIAL SERVICES,GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,3RD
FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING,SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI, PIN -
110001
12 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
13 ADV. BONIFUS P.A,
ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER APPOINTED IN MC NO.1113/2022,SAID
2024:KER:87018
WP(C) NO. 39924 OF 2024
3
MOHAMMAD COMPLEX, C.P. UMMER ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
682035
14 STATION HOYSE OFFICER
PALLURUTHY POLICE STATION, PS, PALLURUTHY PO, KOCHI, PIN
- 682006
SRI. R. RENJITH-SC, SRI. SREEJITH V.S.-GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:87018
WP(C) NO. 39924 OF 2024
4
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are the partners of M/s. Power Plus Power Unit. The Petitioners' enterprise is a Micro Service Enterprise covered by the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 ('the MSMED Act'). Earlier to the present writ petition, the petitioners had approached this court in W.P(C) No. 41576 of 2023, seeking nine reliefs, including various declarations primarily concerning the action of the respondent Bank in proceedings under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the SARFAESI Act for short).
2.This writ petition was dismissed by this court vide the judgment dated 24.10.2024.
Paragraph 15 of the judgment would read as under:-
"15. From the material on record, there is nothing to suggest that the petitioner ever brought to the notice of the Bank that the petitioners' concern was MSME. As mentioned above, the petitioners have earlier approached twice or thrice this court and never taken this plea that the petitioner was an MSME. This court granted an indulgence to the petitioners, but they did not comply with the directions. At this stage the petitioner cannot be allowed to come with a new plea of MSME. The 2024:KER:87018 WP(C) NO. 39924 OF 2024 5 petitioners cannot be allowed to misuse the process of the court at this belated stage. The attempt on the part of the petitioners is nothing but to prolong the realisation of money due to the respondent Bank. In view thereof, I find no substance in this writ petition which is hereby dismissed."
3. Aggrieved by the dismissal of W.P(C) No. 41576 of 2023, the petitioners filed the Writ Appeal No. 1728 of 2024. The learned Division Bench of this court vide the judgment dated 07.11.2024, held that in the earlier two writ petitions filed by the petitioners, there was not even a whisper of the petitioner's enterprise being an MSME and repelled the contention of the petitioners that the High Court must intervene no matter how they conducted themselves.
4.The learned Division Bench held that the petitioners' conduct disqualified them from claiming any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is a discretionary exercise based on the principles of fairness and justice.
5. Paragraphs 19 to 21 of the judgment in W. A No. 1728 of 2024 would read as under:-
"19. The Appellants' argument that the High Court must intervene, no matter how they conducted themselves, proceeds on a complete misunderstanding of the nature of writ jurisdiction. There are two separate issues. One, whether the Bank lacked the authority to proceed. Second, whether the Appellants' conduct disqualifies or disentitles them from invoking equity jurisdiction. In cases where a borrower who qualifies as MSME does not initially raise its status to challenge a bank's 2024:KER:87018 WP(C) NO. 39924 OF 2024 6 recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act but instead participates fully in the process without objection, cannot later use their MSME status to argue that the proceedings were without jurisdiction. The power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary based on the principles of fairness and justice, which include examining the conduct of the parties involved. When the Appellants, by their actions, accepted the Bank's authority without objection, the High Court will refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction to assist such Appellants, even if there are questions about the jurisdiction of the Bank. This is because the Appellants' own conduct disqualifies them from claiming such relief. When the High Court declines to interfere in such circumstances, it does not mean that the Appellants' waiver vested the Bank with jurisdiction, assuming it is inherently lacking; it means that the borrower is not entitled to invoke writ jurisdiction irrespective of whether the Bank's actions are without jurisdiction or not. These two concepts are distinct, and the distinction is emphasized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Pro Knit. 20. We, therefore, find no error in the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment, which is following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 21. We find no merit in the appeal. Appeal is dismissed. ''
6.The present writ petition raises almost the same/identical contentions and prayers as those raised in W.P(C) No. 41576 of 2024, which would read as under:-
"a. To declare that that the loan extended to the Petitioner was sanctioned on the basis of the MSME registration and that the Bank was fully aware of the fact the Petitioner is an MSME and that denying the benefit of the notification 29.5.2015 and the ECLGS scheme where the Central Government fully guarantees 100 percent against any loss suffered by the Bank due to the non-payment of the loan by the Borrower, amounts to gross fraud and renders the judgements of this Court in W.P (c) no. 41576/2023 and W.A no. 1728/2024 null and void ab initio;
b. To declare that the Chairman and Managing Directors and other senior officials of the Respondent Bank who willfully refused to implement the notification dated 29.5.2015 and proceeded to classify the account of an MSME as NPA without constituting a committee, much less even implementing a resolution plan which is applicable to all borrowers across the board (Ext P-17), are liable to be removed from office under Section 36AA of the Banking Regulation Act;
c. To declare that the fact that the Petitioner is an MSME was known to the Bank and there is no duty on the part of the Petitioner/MSME to apply for the benefit of the notification, that it is the duty of the banks to reach out to them, and at any event constitute a committee at least where a default has occurred, that paragraph 17 of the judgment in Pro Knits case is rendered 2024:KER:87018 WP(C) NO. 39924 OF 2024 7 per incuriam and sub silentio and that the notification will prevail over Paragraph 17 which the Single judge and the division bench has relied upon in the earlier proceedings and that this Court is duty bound to undo the injustice done to the Petitioner ex debito justitiae as held by a 7-judge constitutional bench in A.R Antulay's case or in the alternative that the said observations in Paragraph 17 of the Pro knits case do not constitute a precedent because the facts in the said case and the instant case are different and distinguishable;
d. To declare that Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 21 inasmuch as the Magistrates pass orders even against MSMEs to take possession of their properties without affording them an opportunity to be heard or in the alternative to read into the Section the obligation to observe the principles of natural justice; e. To declare that the failure on the part of the Central Government/RBI to implement the MSMED notification dated 29.5.2015, in particular, to ensure that the Board of Directors of the Banks/financial institutions in this country, including the Respondent Bank, constitutes a committee for 'stressed micro, small and medium enterprise' and further to prevent the Banks and NBFCs from classifying the account of an MSME as NPA and resorting to recovery under the SARFAESI, RDB Act, IBC, NI Act, etc. in violation of the prohibition to do so as contained in Paragraph 1 and 5(4)(iii) of the said notification, amounts to gross failure on their part to comply with the statutory duty cast upon them under Sections 35, 35A, 35AA, 36, 36AA of the Banking Regulation Act and Sections 45-IE of the Reserve Bank of India Act, and Sections 9 and 10 of the MSMED Act;
f. to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the Central Government and the RBI to enforce the notification dated 29.5.2015 in its true letter and spirit and further to direct the Central Government and the RBI to ensure that recovery action initiated against the Petitioner in violation of the mandate of the notification is recalled, the clock is put back, the injustice which the Petitioner is made to suffer is redressed and that the Petitioner is compensated in full measure;
g. To declare that Section 34 of the RDB Act and Section 34 of the SARFEASI Act which bar the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain and adjudicate the Petitioner's/borrower's plea against the Respondent Bank nay, bank/financial institution, is unconstitutional and void inasmuch as the Petitioner, victims of the gross breach of contract, culpable negligence, malicious and tortious action, so too, violation of the express statutory provisions at the hands of the Respondent Bank, are entitled to institute an action/suit as against the Respondent Bank for the enforcement of the Petitioner' right as against them;
h. declare that the Petitioner being an MSME within the meaning of Sections
7 and 8 of the MSMED Act of 2006, it is entitled to the benefits of the said Act and, in particular, the notification S.O. 1432(E) dated 29.5.2015 issued by the Central Government under Section 9 of the Act which provides for a mechanism of resolution of stress of MSMEs, as also, the circulars and guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India under Section 10 of the MSMED Act and further that no proceedings for recovery of the amounts due by the MSMEs to banks/financial institutions, nay, even operational 2024:KER:87018 WP(C) NO. 39924 OF 2024 8 creditors, shall lie against the Petitioner under the SARFAESI Act, RDB Act, IBC, Negotiable Instruments Act or any other law, for recovery of the amounts allegedly due, in as much as the MSMED Act being a special law/later law in relation to the aforesaid enactments, the MSMED Act will prevail over them and recovery can be made only in accordance with article 5 (4) (iii) of the aforesaid notification dated 29.5.2015; i. issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent Bank to produce the entire records and proceedings concerning the Petitioner's loan account, and in particular, the internal correspondence and in particular the documents obtained from the Petitioner at the time of sanctioning of the loan, which includes the Udyog Aadhaar and Udyam Memorandum Certificates which would establish that the fact that the Petitioner was an MSME was fully known to the bank;
j. declare that the MSMED Act in so far as it has not created a special forum/tribunal to enforce the inter-se rights and obligations/remedies, which it has created in addition to those rights/obligations/remedies recognized by the common law, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not ousted, for it is impossible to oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court without providing for an alternative forum/tribunal to adjudicate the inter se disputes between parties who are governed by the Act, and further as a corollary thereof, the DRTs, NCLTs created under the RDB Act 1993 and the Companies Act 2013 are invested of no jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute arising out of/involving the MSMED Act;
k. declare that the entire recovery steps initiated by Respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act or any other law, is without jurisdiction, illegal and void in as much as the Respondents are not entitled to take recourse to any form of recovery of the amounts they claim to be due to them from the Petitioner except in the manner permitted by the 'Committee for Corrective Action Plan' contemplated in notification S.O. 1432(E) dated 29.5.2015, and quash and set aside the entire action taken by the Respondent Bank under Section 13(2), 13(4) and 14 of the SARFAESI Act/Section 19 of the RDB Act; l. declare that the guidelines and notifications issued by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time empowering the bank and financial institutions to declare a borrower as a willful defaulter is without authority of law, for such a declaration amounts to a civil death and further that the Petitioner, nay, a borrower is not liable to the declared as a willful defaulter except by the authority of an Act of Parliament or statutory instrument having the force of law;
m. declare that the entire recovery proceedings, under the SARFAESI Act leading to the forceful taking of possession of the Petitioner properties and sale thereof is illegal and void ab initio, being in violation of express statutory provisions and vitiated by fraud and further to quash and set aside the same, and further to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari calling for the entire records and proceedings right from the classification of the accounts as NPA and all other proceedings initiated against the Petitioner under Section 13(2), 13(4) and the 14 of the SARFAESI Act and the Rules made thereunder, even the possible classification as wilful defaulter, so too, under the RDB Act and to quash and set aside the same;
n. to issue a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining and prohibiting Respondent Bank/Financial institution, their agents, servants, officers, 2024:KER:87018 WP(C) NO. 39924 OF 2024 9 representatives from taking any action for recovery under the SARFAESI Act, IBC, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, Negotiable Instruments Acts or any other law in respect of the amounts they falsely claim to be due from the Petitioner, in particular restraining Respondent no. 3, from dispossessing the Petitioner from its properties; o. to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, directing Respondent no. 1, Board of Directors of the Canara Bank to constitute a committee for the resolution of the stress in the unit of the Petitioner Company, an MSME, as contemplated in paragraph 2 of the notification dated 29.5.2015 issued under the MSMED Act, and further to direct the Committee to resolve the stress in accordance with the said notification and such other relevant notifications/regulations framed by the RBI;
p. to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, directing Respondents to put the clock back in respect of the entire action initiated under the SARFAESI Act, in particular, cancel the possession notice dated 18.05.2024, for taking the forceful possession of Petitioner's properties, further to make attempts to revive the Petitioner's business as mandated by the notification dated 29.5.2015; q. declare that the Petitioner is entitled to be compensated from the Respondent bank for the loss and injury, which it has suffered on account of the gross breach of contract and trust, culpable negligence, and malicious and tortious action at the hands of the Bank, financial institution and its officers, which loss and injury far exceeds the very claim of the Bank as against the Petitioner and therefore, no amount is due to the Respondents by the Petitioner and further that the Respondents have no enforceable rights as against the Petitioner;
r. To declare that the various writ petitions and other proceedings which the Petitioner has instituted do not constitute a Cause of Action Estoppel, nay, estoppel per rem judicatam/res judicata, not even issue estoppel, inasmuch as there is no Estoppel against statute, nay estoppel per rem judicatam/res judicata, or even Issue Estoppel inasmuch as the rights and remedies which the Petitioner seeks to enforce in the instant is based on the notification dated 29.5.2015, and for the added reason that in the previous proceedings before this Hon'ble High Court and other forums there was never an adjudication on merits, nay, even the parties to the instant petition and the earlier proceedings are different;
s. pass such further and other orders as the nature and circumstances of the case may require."
7. Heard Adv. Mathew Nedumpara, the learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by Ms. Maria Nedumpara and Adv. Renjith. R, the learned Standing counsel for the respondents.
2024:KER:87018 WP(C) NO. 39924 OF 2024 10
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that W.P (C) No.15055 of 2023, was filed subsequent to the order passed by the learned CJM, Ernakulam, appointing an Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the secured asset and the Advocate Commissioner issued the notice dated 20.04.2023. The issue of petitioners' enterprise being an MSME was not the issue involved in the said writ petition. The said writ petition was, therefore, disposed of on the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were ready to discharge the liability of the respondent Bank within a period of three weeks.
9. Paragraphs 4,5,6 and 7 of the judgment dated 04.09.2023 passed in W.P (C) No. 15055 of 2023 would read as under:-
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are ready to discharge the liability of the 1 st respondent Bank. Besides the Rs.1.50 crores which has been sanctioned by the Federal Bank, any other outstanding amount will be discharged by the petitioners within a period of three weeks from today.
5. The learned Counsel for the 1st respondent, though, has objected to the maintainability of the writ petition, does not have much objection regarding the payment of outstanding dues by the petitioners and if the liability is discharged within a period of three weeks from today, the 1st respondent Bank shall release the papers and discharge the mortgage.
6. The learned Counsel for the 4th respondent/Federal Bank also does not dispute the fact that the Federal Bank has agreed to sanction a loan of Rs.1.50 crores for the purchase of the said secured asset by the 2nd petitioner through M/s Sky Bond Glazing
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of as under: (i) The petitioners shall 2024:KER:87018 WP(C) NO. 39924 OF 2024 11 discharge all the liabilities of the 1st respondent Bank within a period of three weeks from today. (ii) The Federal Bank shall honour its commitment to release Rs.1.50 crores as loan amount for the purchase of the secured asset by the 2nd petitioner through M/s Sky Bond Glazing, subject to the fulfilment of the conditions of the Federal Bank for sanctioning the said loan amount. (iii) On discharge of liability by the petitioners, the 1st respondent Bank shall release the papers and mortgage of the secured asset to the petitioners. (iv) In case the petitioners fail to discharge the liability as mentioned above, the 1st respondent Bank shall be free to proceed with the SARFAESI proceedings in accordance with law"
10. The petitioners' did not comply with the judgment dated 04.09.2023 and when the Authorized Officer took steps under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, they filed another W.P(C) No. 31724 of 2023. The said writ petition was disposed of vide the judgment dated 16.10.2024.
11.Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the judgment in W.P(C) No. 31724 of 2023 dated 16.10.2024 would read as under:-
"2. The learned counsel for the petitioner confined the relief to give a direction to the respondent Bank to consider and take a decision on Ext.P10 proposal for One Time Settlement.
3. Therefore, the competent authority of the respondent Bank is directed to consider and take a decision on Ext.P10 proposal within one week from this date. The proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the SARFAESI Act shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one week from this date."
12. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners' partnership firm is an MSME concern and if that aspect has not been considered by the Bank and has not followed 2024:KER:87018 WP(C) NO. 39924 OF 2024 12 the provisions of the MSME Act, the circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India in this aspect, the petitioners cannot be estopped to raise this contention in a subsequent litigation. He further submits that there is no estoppel against the law.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the learned Division Bench did not discuss at all or adjudicate the cause of action and issues based on which the reliefs, particularly the declaratory reliefs were sought in W.P(C) No. 41576 of 2023. He further submits that neither this court nor the Division Bench adjudicated upon the actual merits of the case, and the conclusions of this Court and the Division Bench are Void ab initio, which means contrary to the statute.
14. He further submits that paragraph 17 of the judgment in W.P(C) No 41576 of 2023 in M/s PRO KNITS v. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF CANARA BANK & ORS [ Civil Appeal No. 8332 of 2024 dated 01.08.2024] also contrary to the express statutory provisions and therefore it is per incuriam.
15. A notification dated 29.05.2015 came into effect after 2024:KER:87018 WP(C) NO. 39924 OF 2024 13 receiving the assent of both Houses of the Parliament. The RBI issued further circulars dated 17.03.2016 and 21.07.2016 mandating the Board of Directors of Banks and financial institutions to implement the circular and further constituted State-Level Inter-Institutional Committees, Empowered Committees on MSMEs, and the Banking Code and Standard Boards of India.
16. It is further submitted that the respondent Bank could secure the dismissal of the W.P (C) No. 41576 of 2023 and the W.A No. 1728/2024, on wrong premise and incorrect submissions, because it was fully aware of the fact that the petitioners concern was MSME and the loan under ECGLS was sanctioned only upon the petitioners furnishing the Udyam certificate.
17.The learned counsel for the petitioners therefore submitted that a direction be issued to the Board of Directors of the respondent Bank to constitute a committee for the resolution of the stress in the unit of the petitioners, an MSME as contemplated in Paragraph (2) of the notification dated 2024:KER:87018 WP(C) NO. 39924 OF 2024 14 29.05.2015, issued under the MSMED Act and further to direct the committee to resolve the stress in accordance with the said notification and such other relevant notification and regulation framed by the RBI. He also submitted that in view of the aforesaid, a mandamus is required to be issued commanding the respondents to defer the possession notice dated 18.05.2024 for taking the forceful possession of the petitioners' properties and they should make attempts to revive the petitioners business as per the notification dated 29.05.2015.
18.I have considered the submissions advanced. The judgments passed by this court and the Division Bench W.P(C) No. 41576 of 2023 and W.A No. 1728 of 2024 dated 24.10.2024 and 07.11.2024 respectively, would suggest that the very same contentions raised by the learned counsel for that petitioners' concern being an MSME and the SARFAESI proceedings undertaken by the Banks to recover its outstanding dues are violative of MSMED Act and the circular dated 29.05.2015 issued by the RBI were considered and rejected. The 2024:KER:87018 WP(C) NO. 39924 OF 2024 15 petitioners cannot be allowed to file writ petition after writ petition for the same relief on the same facts and same grounds. This amounts to nothing but a gross abuse of the process of the court and law, and therefore, the 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:87018 WP(C) NO. 39924 OF 2024 16 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39924/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE UDYOG AADHAR REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE NO. UANKL02D0019128 Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE MSME REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE NUMBER UDYAM-KL-02-0010491 DATED 22.01.2021, ISSUED BY THE MSME MINISTRY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, TO M/S. POWERPLUS POWER UNIT Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION S.O. 1432(E) DATED 29-05-2015 FOR REVIVAL AND REHABILITATION OF MSME ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF MICRO SMALL & MEDIUM ENTERPRISES Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR FIDD.MSME & NFS.BC.NO.21/06.02.31/2015-16 DATED 17-03- 2016, ISSUED BY THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA (RBI) Exhibit P5 A COPY OF THE MASTER DIRECTION- RESERVE BANK OF INDIA ( LENDING TO MSME SECTOR);
DIRECTIONS, 2016, CHAPTER-1 Exhibit P6 A COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. RBI/2012-13/156 OF THE RBI DATED 1.8.2012 Exhibit P7 A COPY OF THE SANCTION LETTER DATED 30.10.2018 ISSUED BY INDUSLND BANK Exhibit P7(a) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.8.2023 ISSUED BY THE BANK TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 4.4.2022, ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE DATED 13.07.2022 Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.4.2023, 2024:KER:87018 WP(C) NO. 39924 OF 2024 17 ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER Exhibit P11 A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT PETITION NO.
15055/2023 DATED 4.9.2023 Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P (C) NO.
31724/2023 DATED 16.10.2023 Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 10.12,2023 BEING SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE CHAIRPERSON, COMMITTEE FOR STRESSED MICRO SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES INDUSIND BANK LIMITED Exhibit P14 A COPY OF THE EMERGENCY CREDIT LINE GUARANTEE SCHEME AS PUBLISHED BY THE PRESS INFORMATION BUREAU Exhibit P15 A COPY OF THE PRESCRIBED FORMAT SUPPLIED BY THE BANK Exhibit P16 A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.10.2024 IN WPC 41576/2023 Exhibit P17 A COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF WRIT APPEAL 1728/2024 WITHOUT ANNEXURES Exhibit P18 A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07/11/2024 IN WA 1728/2024 Exhibit P19 A COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.
STR.REC.55/21.4.048//2021-22 OF THE RBI DATED 1.10.2021