- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14389 WP No. 498 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 498 OF 2026 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN: MR. JINU VARGHESE K.V., PROPRIETOR OF M/S. GENUINE AGRO SPICES, A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP, XI/447 D, PAZHAMTHOTTAM P.O., PULINCHODE, ERNAKULAM, KERALA - 683 565 &PETITIONER (BY SRI. MATHEWS J., NEDUMOPARA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.SHAMEEM FAYIZ V.P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF CANARA BANK THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 112, JC ROAD, BANGALORE 560 002. 2. CANARA BANK REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, 112, J.C.ROAD, BANGALORE -560 002 3. AUTHORISED OFFICER AND CHIEF MANAGER, CANARA BANK PANAMPILLY NAGAR BRANCH, I FLOOR, ANJIPARAMBLI COMPLEX, 34/368 B, PANAMPILLYNAGAR, Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14389 WP No. 498 of 2026 NEAR SOUTH OVER BRIDGE, ERNAKULAM - 682 016 4. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF CITY UNION BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 149, TSR (BIG) STREET, KUMBAKONAM, THANJAVUR DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU- 612 001 5. CITY UNION BANK LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, 149,TSR (BIG) STREET, KUMBAKONAM, THANJAVUR DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU -612 001 6. AUTHORISED OFFICER, CITY UNION BANK LTD., CREDIT RECOVERY AND MANAGEMENT DEPT., ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, NO.24-B, GANDHI NAGAR, KUMBAKONAM, TAMIL NADU - 612 001 7. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF STANDARD CHARTERED BANK REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 19, RAJAJI SALAI, GENERAL POST OFFICE, CHENNAI - 600 001 8. AUTHORISED OFFICER STANDARD CHARTERED BANK ERNAKULAM BRANCH, HDFC HOUSE, M.G. ROAD, RAVIPURAM JUNCTION, PERUMANOOR S.O. P.O. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14389 WP No. 498 of 2026 ERNAKULAM -682 015 9. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE GOVERNOR, SHAHID BHAGAT SINGH ROAD, MUMBAI-400 001 10. MINISTRY OF MICRO SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, UDYOG BHAWAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI-110 001 11. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY IN THE DEPARTMENT OF BANKING, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, 3RD FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI -110 001 12. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, ROOM NO.110, M.S.BUILDING, GATE II, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, ASHOK NAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA -560 001 13. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001 14. GENERAL MANAGER DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, ERNAKULAM, KAKKANAD- 682 030 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14389 WP No. 498 of 2026 15. CHAIRMAN, ENTERPRISE (MSEFC) MICRO AND FACILITATION SMALL COUNCIL DIRECTORATE OF INDUSTRIES COMMERCE, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA -695 033 16. CHAIRMAN, LEVEL STATE INTER-INSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE REGIONAL OFFICE, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA BAKERY JUNCTION, P.B. NO. 6507, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 033 17. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR INDIA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE SHASTRI BHAVAN, DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI -110 001 18. ANIL DHIRAJLAL AMBANI AGED 66 YEARS C/O RELIANCE INFRASTRUCTURE 39, SEA WIND, CUFFE PARADE, COLABA, MUMBAI-400 005 19. MUKESH AMBANI AGED 68 YEARS C/O RELIANCE INFRASTRUCTURE CHAIRMAN, RELIANCE INDUSTRIES, 3RD FLOOR, MAKER CHAMBERS IV, 222, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI- 400 021 20. THE CHAIRMAN, STATE BANK OF INDIA CORPORATE CENTER, 16TH FLOOR, MADAM CAMA ROAD, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14389 WP No. 498 of 2026 NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI - 400 021 &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R12 SMT.REHMA K. THAMMAIAH, CGC FOR R11) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE ANNEXURE-C/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 /(ANNEXURE-D) 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 ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14389 WP No. 498 of 2026 ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: "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-C/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; /(Annex-D) 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) In furtherance of prayer (a) above, to declare that the judgments of the Supreme Court in Annex-N Pro Knits v. Canara Bank Annex-P &Ors. (2024) 10 SCC 292 and Annex-P 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 Annex -C/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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14389 WP No. 498 of 2026 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 Annex- C/notification dated 29.5.2015 under the MSMED Act and without jurisdiction for more than one reason; 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 conducted by the Respondent Bank. e) to declare that insofar as the MSMED Act and the Annex- C/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; 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- E/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; - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14389 WP No. 498 of 2026 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" 2. In respect of the very same reliefs, the petitioner had filed earlier writ petition i.e., WP.No.36566/2025. The reliefs in the earlier writ petition are as follows: <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; - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14389 WP No. 498 of 2026 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) 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; 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. (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 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14389 WP No. 498 of 2026 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." 3. This Court had dismissed the earlier writ petition by order dated 08.12.2025. With the very same relief, the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14389 WP No. 498 of 2026 petitioner has come up before this Court by filing the instant writ petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has tried to distinguish the present writ petition, what operates as res judicata and he wants to argue on the merits of the matter. When a writ petition was filed on the same facts seeking the same reliefs and that writ petition is dismissed by this Court, the petitioner cannot file another writ petition. This is nothing but pure abuse of process of law. The conduct of the petitioner in repeatedly invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing successive petition on substantially the same cause of action cannot be countenanced. The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be permitted to be employed as a tool for vexatious or repetitive litigation. The conduct of the petitioner clearly demonstrates an attempt to misuse the jurisdiction of this Court. This is a fit case to impose costs so that the litigant do not resort to repetition and vexatious litigation to delay statutory process. Hence, this Court is passing the following: - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14389 WP No. 498 of 2026 ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/- to be paid to the Advocates' Association, Bengaluru, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43