Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 820 (RAJ)

Shree Khatri Namkeen v. Reserve Bank of India

2025-03-17

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2025
Order : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application preferred under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India . 2. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners have not applied in the category of ‘MSME’ while securing the loan from the respondent-Bank in the name of ‘Shree Khatri Namkeen’. He further submits that even the application and the affidavit, to the effect that the company of the petitioners is an ‘MSME’, have not been filed before the respondent-Bank, therefore, the respondent-Bank was not under obligation to comply with the provisions enshrined in the notification dated 29.05.2015 for identification of the incipient stress. He therefore, prays that the interim order granted by this Court on 04.02.2025 may be vacated. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that from the inception, the petitioners’ company was an MSME and they have approached the respondent-Bank for the grant of loan in its name. He further submits that even the notice issued by the respondents under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act refers the petitioners’ company as ‘MSME’ and, therefore, there was no reason for the respondents not to identify the company as ‘MSME’. He further submits that in this view of the matter, the respondents were under obligation to identify the company of the petitioners in the category of incipient stress, however, the respondent-Bank has not followed the procedure enshrined in the notification dated 29.05.2015. He, therefore, prays that the application filed under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India may be dismissed. 4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the relevant record of the case. 5. It is true that the petitioners have sanctioned a loan from the respondent Bank and were unable to pay the installments on the due dates, however, the Bank was under obligation to comply with the provisions mentioned in the notification dated 29.05.2015 for identifying the petitioners’ company in the category of incipient stress and the respondent-Bank is not in a position to show that it has taken the steps for identifying the petitioners’ company in the category of the incipient stress before declaring it as Non- Performing Asset (NPA). In this view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to vacate the interim order passed on 04.02.2025. 6. In this view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to vacate the interim order passed on 04.02.2025. 6. In view of the discussions made above, the application preferred by the respondents under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India is not found to be meritorious and the same is, therefore, dismissed. 7. The interim order dated 04.02.2025 is confirmed till the final disposal of this writ petition. 8. The stay application is disposed of in the above terms. 9. List the matter on 16.04.2025.