ORDER : 1. The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: “That in the facts and circumstances mentioned above it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: a) To declare that the Annex-F/notification dated 29-05-2015, in unmistakable terms, declares that the MSME-borrower has no obligation to make an application for resolution of stress and, on the contrary, that banks and financial institutions are duty-bound to identify incipient stress based on the illustrative signs indicated in to the Annex-G/RBI 2015-16/338 Circular dated 17-03-2016 Bearing No. FIDD.MSME & NFS.BC.NO.21/06-02.31/2015-16 and further, that in any case where the bank has failed to identify incipient stress, it is duty-bound to classify the account as SMA-1 if the default is more than 31 days and as SMA-2 if the default is more than 61 days, and thereafter shall constitute a Committee and make a reference to that Committee for resolution of stress; and further, that the Committee is empowered to permit recovery in terms of Para 5(3)(iv) if the resolution of stress is not feasible; b) In furtherance of prayer (a) above, to declare that the judgments of the Supreme Court in Pro Knits v. Canara Bank & Ors. (2024) 10 SCC 292 and Shree Shree Swami Samarth Construction & Anr. v. The Board of Directors of NKGSB Co-op Bank & Ors. were rendered per incuriam and sub silentio and will not bind the courts and tribunals in this country under Article 141 of the Constitution, inasmuch as: (i) in Pro Knits, the Court had, contrary to the letter and spirit of the notification, observed that if the MSME had allowed its account to be classified as NPA and for recovery action to be initiated, having failed to bring to the notice of the bank that it is an MSME supported by identifiable and verifiable documents, it cannot be allowed to "thwart" the SARFAESI action at a later stage. (ii) in Shree Shree Swami Samarth, the Court observed that if the MSME had not even replied to the notice under Section 13(2) and claimed protection as an MSME supported by an affidavit, the recovery action cannot thereafter be challenged-which, to repeat, are contrary to the very letter as well as the spirit of the notification and have created a scenario where the said judgments have been instrumental in denying the benefit of the notification to MSMEs across the country. (vide Annx-AE) c) To declare that the entire proceedings initiated by the Respondent against the Petitioners under Sections 13(2), 13(4) and 14 of the SARFAESI Act, are unconstitutional, illegal and void, being in violation of Paragraph 5(4)(iii) of the Annex- F/notification dated 29.5.2015 under the MSMED Act and without jurisdiction for more than one reason; (vide Annx-F). d) to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the entire records and proceedings leading to the classification of the Petitioner' account as a Non- Performing Asset (NPA), the issuance of notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4), and the order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 as well as the records pertaining to the purported auctions f. conducted by the Respondent Bank. (vide Annx-X & Annx-Y) e) to declare that insofar as the MSMED Act and the Annex- F/notification dated 29.5.2015 creates certain obligations and burden as against the Bank and certain rights and protection in favour of the MSME borrower in furtherance of larger public interest, and has not provided for any forum for the enforcement of the said inter se rights/adjudication of disputes, the Civil Court jurisdiction is not ousted; (vide Annex-F) f) to declare that the Respondent Bank is not entitled to any of the remedies which it seeks to enforce in terms of the Annex- X/notice under Sections 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 so also under Section 14 of the said Act inasmuch as it is not the Petitioner who are guilty of any breach of contract and who are under any obligation in terms of the contract between him and the Respondent-Bank, but the latter, namely the Respondent-Bank and its officers who are guilty of gross breach of contract, culpable negligence, customer unfriendly attitude and malicious and tortious actions, and thereby have caused damage and loss to the Petitioner far in excess of the very claim of the Respondent- Bank and, to put it succinctly, to grant in favour of the Petitioner a negative declaration that no amount is due from the Petitioner to the Respondent-Bank: g) to issue a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining and prohibiting the Respondent-bank from proceeding any further in furtherance of the action initiated under Section 13, 13(2), 13(4) and 14 of the SARFAESI Act, Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act or under any other law or in any manner whatsoever to interfere with the absolute estate, right, title, possession and enjoyment of the properties of Petitioner which the Respondents falsely claimed to be secured at their hands; h) to declare that while the Respondent Bank is entitled to enforce all remedies available in law as against the Petitioner, common law, equitable or declaratory, it can only have one forum, and that it having instituted a suit in the DRT, the SARFAESI action is without jurisdiction and void; i) pass such further and other orders as the nature and circumstances of the case may require. The interim relief that is sought as follows: For the reasons stated in the above Writ Petition (Civil) and the affidavit accompanying thereto, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: a. Grant an ad-interim injunction restraining and prohibiting the Respondent-bank, its agents, servants and privies from proceeding any further in furtherance of the action initiated under the SARFAESI Act, RDB Act, or any other law in force, particularly stay the enforcement and all further steps pursuant to the e- auction notices scheduled for 08.12.2025 Ref! ARM SNGENUINE RET 2025-26-10. as per Annex-AC & Annex-AD, dated 31/10/2025 issued by the Respondent bank; b. Pass any other orders which the Hon'ble Court deems fit owing to the nature of circumstances. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a proprietor of M/s. Genuine Agro Spices, a sole proprietorship engaged in the trading of agricultural produce (spices), including export thereof, established in 2011 and having UDYAM registration Certificate No.UDYAM-KL-02-0003223, issued by the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises(MSME), Government of India. Petitioner/Company is situated at Pazhamthottam P.O., Pulinchode, Ernakulam, Kerala. It is stated that respondent Nos.1 to 3 sanctioned a working capital of Rs.1200 Lakhs under Sanction memorandum dated 20.08.2022. Respondent No.1 is the Board of Directors of Canara Bank situated at Bangalore. Respondent No.2 is Canara Bank represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, J.C. Road, Bangalore and respondent No.3 is the Authorized Officer and Chief Manager, Canara Bank, Panampilly Nagar Branch, I Floor, Anjiparambli Complex, Panampillynagar, near South over Bridge, Ernakulam and they were fully secured by the collateral securities i.e., (a) to (g) as stated in paragraph No.4 of the writ petition which are situated at Ernakulam District. It is also stated that respondent Nos.4 and 5 sanctioned credit facilities for an amount of Rs.36.5 Lakhs and Rs.5 Crores under Sanction letter dated 10.02.2022. For the said loan facilities, the collateral securities are stated in paragraph No.5 i.e., (a) to (d) which are situated in Kerala. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 are the Board of Directors of City Union Bank Ltd. represented by its Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer. It is situated at “Narayana” No.24B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam, Tamil Nadu and respondent No.5 is City Union Bank Ltd., Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam, Tamil Nadu. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 are the Board of Directors of City Union Bank Ltd. represented by its Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer. It is situated at “Narayana” No.24B, Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam, Tamil Nadu and respondent No.5 is City Union Bank Ltd., Gandhi Nagar, Kumbakonam, Tamil Nadu. It is also stated that respondent Nos.6 and 7 have also sanctioned the credit facilities of Rs.6 Crores, 8.35 Crores, Rs.8.35 Crores and Rs.8.35 Crores under Facility Letter dated 12.04.2021. For that they have mortgaged the properties (a) to (g) which are situated in Kerala. Respondent Nos.6 and 7 are the Board of Directors of Standard Chartered Bank situated at Chennai and respondent No.7 is Authorized Officer of the Standard Chartered Bank situated at Ernakulam. It is also stated that the petitioner is a MSME registered under the MSMED Act, 2006. Section 9 and 10 of the said Act read along with the notifications issued from time to time by Government of India provide with a framework for the promotion, facilitation, development and the protection of the business of MSMEs. The Reserve Bank of India in exercises of its powers under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and being the regulator of Banks in the country issued Notification dated 17.03.2016 giving directions to all banks in India to implement the Government of India MSME Notification dated 29.05.2025 albeit by watering it down. Hence, they are challenging the provisions of the RBI Notification. It is stated that in the present case, not only the High Court but even the Supreme Court, instead of coming to the rescue of MSMEs which are the backbone of India's economy, providing 60% of employment, 35% of GDP and 45% of exports have given an interpretation to the notification dated 29.05.2015, which is contrary to the letter and spirit. The petitioner had relied on certain judgments and states that allowing the account to be declared as NPA and lost the challenge to recovery actions, is contrary to the Statute and rendered per incuriam and the interpretation needs to be reversed so that justice can be done to MSMEs. The petitioner had relied on certain judgments and states that allowing the account to be declared as NPA and lost the challenge to recovery actions, is contrary to the Statute and rendered per incuriam and the interpretation needs to be reversed so that justice can be done to MSMEs. When it comes to the cause of action, it is stated that respondent No.3-Authorized Officer arbitrarily declared the loan account of the petitioner as NPA on 27.06.2025 and issued the demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 01.07.2025 to the petitioner's proprietorship seeking repayment of an amount of Rs.12,50,60,266.01/- and then respondent No.3/bank had issued the possession notice dated 10.09.2025 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act taking the symbolic possession of the mortgaged properties. Further, respondent No.4 had issued a show cause notice dated 13.10.2025 directing the petitioner to show cause against classifying the plaintiff's PAN-card as fraudulent, based on the internal audit- report on the petitioner's functioning. It is further stated that the petitioner is constrained to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India due to extraordinary circumstances. The cause of action arises when respondent No.3/bank declared the loan account of the petitioner as NPA and issued a demand notice dated 01.07.2025 and further, issued the possession notice and auction notices by the respondent/bank, the writ petition is filed. The cause of action for the petitioner to come before this Court is the action of respondent No.3/bank, which is situated at Ernakulam. 3. When this matter came up before this Court, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3/Canara Bank submits that the writ petition is not maintainable before this Court as the petitioner is questioning the action of the bank in declaring the account of the petitioner as NPA and issuing the demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and also a possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. It is submitted that the properties that are mortgaged to the bank are situated at Ernakulam, loan was obtained at Ernakulam. The head office of the bank is situated at Bengaluru, cannot be a cause of action for the petitioner to approach this Court. It is further submitted that the writ petition has to be dismissed as not maintainable. 4. It is submitted that the properties that are mortgaged to the bank are situated at Ernakulam, loan was obtained at Ernakulam. The head office of the bank is situated at Bengaluru, cannot be a cause of action for the petitioner to approach this Court. It is further submitted that the writ petition has to be dismissed as not maintainable. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/company submits that the writ petition is very much maintainable before this Court. There are different causes of action for the petitioner and the petitioner being the Dominus Litis, he can file the petition before the forum which they choose to do so and there is no bar under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in filing the writ petition before this Court. Learned counsel had referred to Section 16 to 20 of the CPC and submits that there are different cause of actions in this case. Though the bank is situated within the territorial jurisdiction, the head office is situated at Bangalore within the territorial limits of this Court. Hence, the writ petition is maintainable before this Court. It is further submitted the Attorney General is a proper and necessary party to this writ petition as he is questioning the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and to declare them as per incuriam and also the procedure in which the account of an MSME borrower is declared as NPA. In view of the questions of law that are involved, the presence of the Attorney General is very much necessary as such he had made the Attorney General as a party/respondent to this writ petition. Learned counsel had relied on the judgment of the Madras High Court where before the Madras High Court, the Canara Bank had stated that they have not constituted the committee as per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India and the provisions of the MSME Act. It is submitted that as this involves a question of law and the particular fact that there is non-compliance of the directions of the Reserve Bank of India and also the provisions of the MSME Act and the bank’s Head Office is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court in Bangalore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is very much maintainable. 5. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/company, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3/bank, perused the entire material on record. The undisputed facts in this case are that the petitioner had borrowed the loan from respondent No.3/bank, respondent No.5/bank and also respondent No.7 and had mortgaged the properties that are situated within the State of Kerala. The petitioner had raised several grounds with regard to the MSMEs and also the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the provisions and other judgments. The interim relief that is sought is against the proceedings initiated by the bank under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and the same have to be interfered by this Court. The submission with regard to, cause of action is a bundle of facts and the petitioner being the Dominus Litis, it can approach the forum of his choice are concerned, the petitioner had availed the loans from the banks situated at Kerala. No doubt, the Canara Bank’s head office is situated at Bangalore. For all the practical purposes, for the execution and for all other aspects, the major cause of action i.e., sanctioning of the loan, mortgaging of the properties which are situated at Kerala, the Courts at Kerala had got the jurisdiction. The Canara Bank Head Office is situated at Bangalore, that itself cannot be a ground for this Court to say that this Court has got the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. The petitioner could have approached the High Court of Kerala and could have filed the writ petition. It is not that the Kerala High Court has no jurisdiction to issue notice to the Canara Bank Head Office. In matters pertaining to SARFAESI cases, cause of action is primarily linked to location of the secured asset. Place where Section 13(2) notice is issued or served, place where measures under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and the proceeding under Section 14 are initiated. Admittedly all the above are taken place/situated at Kerala. At any stretch of imagination it cannot be said that the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore is having jurisdiction. Learned counsel had relied on Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India and submits that if the cause of action, wholly or in part arises within the territorial limits of the High Court, then the Court will have jurisdiction. At any stretch of imagination it cannot be said that the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore is having jurisdiction. Learned counsel had relied on Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India and submits that if the cause of action, wholly or in part arises within the territorial limits of the High Court, then the Court will have jurisdiction. Territorial jurisdiction depends entirely on where the causes of action arises and not on the situs of the respondent under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India. The part of cause of action relied upon must be integral, material directly connected to the grievance. The head office of Canara Bank being situated at Bangalore is incidental, not constructive of the cause of action. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India and another , 2004 (6) SCC 254 held that location of the office of the respondent do not Ipsofacto confer jurisdiction. The Court must examine whether cause of action wholly or partly has arisen within the jurisdiction. 6. The other submission is that the plaintiff is dominus litis. Hence, the writ petition is maintainable, that submission also has no force. The petitioner is the master of the lis and may choose the forum only among courts which have jurisdiction. It will not create or confer jurisdiction. Party convenience or choice is irrelevant. Forum shopping relying on trivial facts impermissible. Hence, this Court is of the view that the writ petition is not maintainable before this Court. 7. When this Court is dismissing the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner makes a submission that this Court may stall the proceedings for a limited period, giving opportunity to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy. This Court is not inclined to pass such an order. When this Court is of the view that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, question of passing any interim order will not arise. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court having Jurisdiction. ii. All I.As., in the writ petition shall stand closed.