ORDER : NIRAL R.MEHTA, J. [1] By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the communication dated 14 th August 2025 and all other consequential actions arising under the provisions of Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, “the SARFAESI Act”). [2] Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Jal Unwalla assisted by learned advocate Mr. Masoom K. Shah for the petitioners. [3] Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Jal Unwalla for the petitioners, at the outset, submitted that while deciding the application by the Standing Committee on framework for revival and rehabilitation of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (for short, “MSME Framework”), as per Clause 4(6) and Clause 4(8) of the Notification dated 29 th May 2015 issued by the Central Government, though it was the obligatory on the part of the Committee to notify the concerned enterprise i.e. the petitioners, there was no notice and / or intimation given to the petitioners to make its case good before the Committee. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Unwalla further submitted that as per the communication dated 14 th August 2025, the Committee has recommended rectification, as a corrective action plan, in the petitioner’s account, however, the Bank, instead of undertaking rectification plan as per Clause 5(4)(i) of the SARFAESI Act, straightway initiated recovery proceedings by taking recourse of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and that has contrary to the objects and purpose of the framework for revival and rehabilitation of the MSME. [4] According to learned Senior Advocate Mr. Unwalla for the petitioners, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Shri Shri Swami Samarth Constructions & Finance Solution vs. Board of Directors of NKGSB Co. op. Bank Ltd. reported in 2025 (0) AIJEL-SC 75652 : 2025 (0) JX(SC) 985, has discussed in an elaborate manner about the provisions of the SARFAESI Act vis-a-vis the MSME Act in the context of framework for revival and rehabilitation of MSME. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Unwalla placed heavy reliance on the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shri Shri Swami Samarth Constructions & Finance Solution (supra) , more particularly in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8, which are quoted hereinbelow: “6. The way Mr. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Unwalla placed heavy reliance on the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shri Shri Swami Samarth Constructions & Finance Solution (supra) , more particularly in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8, which are quoted hereinbelow: “6. The way Mr. Nedumpara urges us to read the Notification and the terms of the FRAMEWORK, if accepted, would lead to the conclusion that every lending bank/secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act would be obliged to find out in every event of continuing default, likely to give rise to classification of the relevant account as NPA, whether the borrower is an MSME to which the FRAMEWORK applies, whether its business has failed or whether it is suffering from any disability to pay its debts; and upon receiving a response, to apply the terms thereof by, inter alia, including the account in the Special Mention Account for the claim for a corrective action plan to be considered by the Committee for stressed MSMEs. This could not have been the intention behind introduction of the FRAMEWORK to aid the MSMEs which, for reasons personal to them, is unable to clear its debt and require revival and rehabilitation that the FRAMEWORK envisages. If indeed it is only the obligation of the lending bank/secured creditor to identify incipient stress in the account, sub- paragraphs 2 and 3 of paragraph 1 would be rendered redundant. An MSME, despite finding that its business is failing or that it is unable to pay its debts or accumulation of losses equals to half or more of its entire net worth and classification of its account as NPA is imminent, it would rest on its oars believing that it has no responsibility and that its account will not be classified as NPA because it is the entire obligation of the lending bank/secured creditor to do what the FRAMEWORK requires. We would read and interpret the seemingly confusing terms of the FRAMEWORK harmoniously to ensure that a right under the MSME Act is not destroyed by the SARFAESI Act or vice versa. We would read and interpret the seemingly confusing terms of the FRAMEWORK harmoniously to ensure that a right under the MSME Act is not destroyed by the SARFAESI Act or vice versa. In our reading, the terms of the FRAMEWORK do not prohibit the lending bank/secured creditor (assuming that it has no conscious knowledge that the defaulting borrower is an MSME) to classify the account of the defaulting MSME as NPA and to even issue the demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act without such identification of incipient stress in the account of the defaulting borrower (MSME); however, upon receipt of the demand notice, if such borrower in its response under Section 13(3-A) of the SARFAESI Act asserts that it an MSME and claims the benefit of the FRAMEWORK citing reasons supported by an affidavit, the lending bank/secured creditor would then be mandatorily bound to look into such claim keeping further action under the SARFAESI Act in abeyance; and, should the claim be found to be worthy of acceptance within the framework of the FRAMEWORK, to act in terms thereof for securing revival and rehabilitation of the defaulting borrower. 7. As has been noted above, the petitioning enterprise does not seem to have ever claimed the benefit of the terms of the FRAMEWORK after the demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued. It is at the stage of compliance with an order passed by the relevant Magistrate under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act that this writ petition has been presented before this Court claiming benefits of the FRAMEWORK to restrain the respondent no.2 and its officers from proceeding further under the SARFAESI Act and other enactments except in the manner contemplated under the said Notification. We find the bona fides of the petitioning enterprise to be suspect. 8. Pro-Knits (supra) is a decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court holding, inter alia, that the Notification is binding on the lending banks/secured creditors. Finding to the contrary by the High Court of Bombay in the judgment and order under challenge in the appeal was, thus, quashed. 8. Pro-Knits (supra) is a decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court holding, inter alia, that the Notification is binding on the lending banks/secured creditors. Finding to the contrary by the High Court of Bombay in the judgment and order under challenge in the appeal was, thus, quashed. Though while stressing that the terms of the FRAMEWORK need to be followed by the lending banks/secured creditors before the account of an MSME is classified as NPA, this decision also lays stress on the obligation of the MSMEs by holding that “it would be equally incumbent on the part of the MSMEs concerned to be vigilant enough to follow the process laid down under the said Framework, and bring to the notice of the Banks concerned, by producing authenticated and verifiable documents/material to show its eligibility to get the benefit of the said Framework”. It was cautioned that “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 bank/creditor concerned 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”. This decision, however, left unsaid something which we have explained hereinabove while construing the terms consistently to prevent undermining of rights that one central enactment confers by another.” [5] On being asked, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Unwalla for the petitioners stated that symbolic possession of the property has been taken over by the petitioners. As such till today, the petitioners are having the physical possession of the property in question. [6] Considering the aforesaid submissions, prima facie, a case is made out. The matter requires consideration. Hence, issue Notice returnable on 16 th October 2025. Direct service is permitted. [7] In the meantime, there shall be an ad-interim relief in terms of para 9(C).