JUDGMENT : ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J. 1. The appellants are the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.42585 of 2025, which was one filed invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , seeking the following reliefs: a) To declare that the 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 Annexure-I to the RBI Circular dated 17.03.2016; 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. [ (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; and (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. 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 notification dated 29.05.2015 under the MSMED Act and without jurisdiction for more than one reason; d) to declare that the loss and injuries suffered by the Petitioners being far in excess of the claim of the Bank as against the Petitioners, the Petitioners are entitled to compensation and damages which he is entitled to seek in the very same proceedings the Bank has instituted against him; e) to declare that insofar as the MSMED Act and the notification dated 29.05.2015 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; f) to issue a permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining and prohibiting the Respondent-Bank, and its Authorized officer, from proceeding any further under Section 13(2), 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act , 2002; g) Declare that the circular dated 17.03.2016 restricting, nay completely taking away, the benefit of the notification dated 29.05.2015 from MSMEs whose credit limit exceeds Rs.25 crores, is illegal, ultra vires the MSMED Act /notification and void to that extent that it takes away such right; h) to declare that the circulars dated 17.03.2016, 26.06.2020, and 04.06.2021 are liable to be read together, and that by virtue of the circular dated 04.06.2021, the cap of Rs.25 crores imposed by the RBI stands altered and amended; i) to declare that the Respondent Bank is not entitled to any of the remedies which it seeks to enforce in terms of the 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 Petitioners 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 not the Petitioners 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 Petitioners far in excess of the very claim of the Respondent-Bank and, to put it succinctly, to grant in favour of the Petitioners a negative declaration that no amount is due from the Petitioners to the Respondent-Bank; j) 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 Petitioners which the Respondents falsely claimed to be secured at their hands; k) 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 Petitioners’ 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 conducted by the Respondent Bank. l) 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.” 2. l) 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.” 2. The appellants-petitioners have filed this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the interim order dated 21.01.2026 of the learned Single Judge in that writ petition, which reads thus: “The prayer in this I.A. is to grant an interim stay against the respondent Bank on further measures taken under sections 13 and 14 of the SARFAESI Act and through the orders in M.C.No.1651 of 2025 dated 17.11.2025 passed by the CJM, Ernakulam and CMP No.13367 of 2025 on the files of CJM, Thrissur dated 01.12.2025. 2. Counsel for the respondent Bank submits that pursuant to the order issued by the CJM, Ernakulam in M.C.NO. 1625 of 2025, one of the property in Ernakulam (covered by Sale Deed No.103/2024 dated 16.01.2024) is already taken in possession and they intend to take physical possession of the property in Thrissur which is clearly described in Ext.P32. As per the Commissioner’s notice, a sum of Rs.32,46,00,000/- is due to respondent Nos.1 and 2. Taking into consideration the amount due to the Bank is more than Rs.32 crores, there will be an interim order for a period of 2 weeks from today on condition that the petitioner remits Rs.10,00,00,000/- (Rupees ten crores only) on or before 5 pm on 30.01.2026. If the said amount is not remitted, the respondent bank is free to take physical possession of the secured assets, in accordance with law.” 3. On 16.02.2026, when this writ appeal came up for admission, an adjournment was sought on the ground that the learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners is unable to argue the matter due to connectivity issues. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the appellants sought an adjournment, when the writ appeal came up for consideration before the Division Bench on 17.02.2026. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned on 23.02.2026, 02.03.2026 and 17.03.2026, at the instance of the learned counsel for the appellants. 4. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the appellants sought an adjournment, when the writ appeal came up for consideration before the Division Bench on 17.02.2026. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned on 23.02.2026, 02.03.2026 and 17.03.2026, at the instance of the learned counsel for the appellants. 4. Today, when this writ appeal is taken up for consideration, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners that SLP(C)No.7581 of 2026 filed by the appellants herein challenging the interim order dated 21.01.2026 of the learned Single Judge in I.A.No.3 of 2026 in W.P.(C)No.42585 of 2025 (the order impugned in this writ appeal), ended in dismissal by the order dated 23.02.2026 of the Apex Court. 5. As already noticed hereinbefore, the prayers (a) and (b) sought for in W.P.(C)No.42585 of 2025 is (a) a declaration that the 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 Annexure-I to the RBI Circular dated 17.03.2016; 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; and (b) a declaration that the judgments of the Supreme Court in Pro Knits v. Canara Bank & Ors. (2024) 10 SCC 292 and Shree Shree Swami Samarth Construction v. The Board of Directors of NKGSB Co-op Bank, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1566 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 [supra] , 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 and (ii) in Shree Shree Swami Samarth Construction , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1566 , 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. 6. In the order dated 23.02.2026 in SLP(C)No.7581 of 2026, the Apex Court found that prayers (a) and (b) sought for in W.P.(C)No.42585 of 2025 are such that the same, if granted, would be an act of gravest impropriety. The law declared by the Apex Court, right or wrong, is binding on all courts across the country. Although no authority is required to be cited, in the order dated 23.02.2026, the Apex Court referred to the decisions, inter alia, in Suganthi Suresh Kumar v. Jagdeeshan, (2002) 2 SCC 420 , Director of Settlements v. M.R. Apparao, (2002) 4 SCC 638 and South Central Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society Employees Union v. B. Yashodabai, (2015) 2 SCC 727 . Having regard to the frame of the said writ petition, the Apex Court found that the same is not maintainable. Since the petitioners do not also wish to amend the writ petition, the Apex Court deemed it proper to exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and accordingly W.P.(C)No.42585 of 2025 pending before this Court was dismissed, by the order dated 23.02.2026. Since the petitioners do not also wish to amend the writ petition, the Apex Court deemed it proper to exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and accordingly W.P.(C)No.42585 of 2025 pending before this Court was dismissed, by the order dated 23.02.2026. The said order of the Apex Court in SLP(C)No.7581 of 2026 reads thus: “1. This special leave petition is directed against an interim order passed by the High Court of Kerala in a pending writ petition. 2. Prayers (a) and (b) of the writ petition filed by the petitioners before the High Court are such that the same, if granted, would be an act of gravest impropriety. The law declared by this Court, right or wrong, is binding on all courts across the country. Although no authority is required to be cited, we may refer to the decisions of this Court, inter alia, in Suganthi Suresh Kumar v. Jagdeeshan [ (2002) 2 SCC 420 ], Director of Settlements v. M.R. Apparao [(2002) 4 SCC 638] and South Central Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society Employees Union v. B. Yashodabai & Ors. [ (2015) 2 SCC 727 ]. 3. The writ petition is not maintainable in the manner it has been presented before the High Court; hence, there is no question of entertaining the special leave petition. The same is dismissed. 4. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. 5. We had granted opportunity to Mr. Nedumpara, learned counsel for the petitioners, to go back to the High Court and seek amendment of the writ petition. He does not seem to be agreeable unless we interfere with the interim order under challenge and modify the quantum of deposit directed to be made by the High Court. 6. Having regard to the frame of the writ petition, the same is not maintainable and since the petitioners do not also wish to amend the same, we deem it proper to exercise our power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India . The writ petition pending on the file of the High Court also stands dismissed. 7. This order be communicated to the High Court.” (Underline supplied) 7. Taking note of the order dated 23.02.2026 of the Apex Court in SLP(C)No.7581 of 2026, the learned Single Judge, by the judgment dated 04.03.2026, dismissed W.P.(C)No.42585 of 2025. The writ petition pending on the file of the High Court also stands dismissed. 7. This order be communicated to the High Court.” (Underline supplied) 7. Taking note of the order dated 23.02.2026 of the Apex Court in SLP(C)No.7581 of 2026, the learned Single Judge, by the judgment dated 04.03.2026, dismissed W.P.(C)No.42585 of 2025. The last paragraph of that judgment reads thus: “The Hon’ble Apex Court exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India has dismissed the writ petition (civil) pending before this Court. In view of the said order passed by the Apex Court, this writ petition stands dismissed.” 8. In view of the aforesaid order dated 23.02.2026 of the Apex Court in SLP(C)No.7581 of 2026 and the judgment dated 04.03.2026 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.42585 of 2025, nothing survives in this writ appeal, since W.P.(C)No.42585 of 2025 stands dismissed by the orders of the Apex Court in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India . In such circumstances, this writ appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.