2026:HHC:14693-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 12892 of 2024 Date of decision: 30.04.2026. M/s Alves Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus Citizen Credit Cooperative Bank Ltd. & another ...Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Suneet Goel, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Sanjay Dalmia, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ankit Dhiman, Advocate, for respondent No.2. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral): The challenge in the present writ petition is for setting aside the declaration of the action in classification of the account of Non-Performing Asset (NPA) dated 28.06.2024 (Annexure P-8), issued by respondent No.1- Bank, consequently calling upon for the enforcement of the guidelines, which inter-alia provides for formation of a 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- Committee in terms of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Guidelines. Resultantly, implementation of the Corrective Action Plan (CAP) being framework for Revival and Rehabilitation of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, dated 17.03.2016, issued in terms of notification dated 29.05.2015 being Framework for the Revival of the said Enterprises and consideration of restructuring proposal is sought for. Resultantly, the enforcement of the One Time Settlement (OTS) Guidelines dated 08.06.2023, providing for restructuring of existing loans is sought for. Similarly, the classification of Non-Performing Assets dated 28.06.2024 is also challenged on the same ground that as per the Master Circular dated 17.03.2016, the degradation of the assets classification is wrong and for staying The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SARFEASI Act’) proceedings and consequent possession by the respondents. 2. The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court, passed in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 7898 of 2024, titled Pro Knits vs. The -3- Board of Directors of Canara Bank & others, decided on 01.08.2024, reported in 2024 (10) SCC 292, to contend that the Apex Court has held that the banks are obliged to adopt the restructuring process on their own and within the framework contained in Notification dated 29.05.2015 and the same would have a binding force. 3. 3. Counsel for the respondent-Bank on the other hand has submitted that the writ does not lie to challenge primarily the securitization proceedings, which have been initiated, since a notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFEASI Act had been issued on 20.8.2024 (Annexure P- 13) and a sum of Rs. 9,94,69,037.09/- had been pointed out as outstanding. The same was followed by Section 13 (4) notice dated 28.10.2024 (Annexure P-29) and therein also a challenge has been raised in the said notice. It is pointed out that the writ petition as such was filed on 12.11.2024, when the said notices already stood issued, only on account of raising the issue as per communication dated 19.8.2024 (Annexure P-12) and only on account of entries, NPA has been declared on 28.6.2024, the writ petition is not liable to be entertained. -4- 4. It is settled principles that this Court has time and again laid down that once there is an alternative remedy and the Tribunals as such have been set up for the said purpose, it would not be appropriate for this Court as such to entertain all such issues in the writ petition, as all said issues could have been raised before the Tribunal. 5. This view has also been taken in the judgment of the Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 684 of 2025, titled Shri Shri Swami Samarth Construction & Finance Solution & another vs. The Board of Directors of NKGSB Co-Op. Bank Ltd. & others, decided on 28.7.2025, wherein the borrower as such has sought to claim the benefits of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act and challenged the classification of the NPA. The Apex Court was as such of the opinion that the challenge is being raised at the stage, when the order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act had been issued by the relevant Magistrate and it was only an effort as such to restrain respondent No.2 from proceeding further under the SARFAESI proceedings. Resultantly Pro Knits (supra) was also considered and the -5- writ petition was dismissed, relegating the petitioning enterprise to pursue the remedy under Section 17 of the Act. However, as much as, vide communication dated 19.8.2024 (Annexure P-12), a day prior to the notice under Section 13 (2) had been issued, a request as such was made to respondent-bank for One Time Settlement (OTS) for SME Accounts based on the guidelines issued by the RBI vide Circular No.RBI/2005-06/153, RPCD. PLNFS.BC. No.39/2005-06 dated 3.9.2005, taking a plea that it is not a willful defaulter. 6. A perusal of reply of the bank dated 21.08.2024 would go on to show that restructuring of loan accounts had already been declined by the bank for the reasons stated in the said letter and petitioner was held not eligible for the OTS as per the Bank’s Recovery Policy. It also specifies that the company’s loan accounts have already been classified as Non-Performing Assets (NPA) by the bank on 26.06.2024, as per the extant guidelines issued by the RBI as such and the bank would not grant more time to the company and had asked to repay the entire outstanding and also noted to repay earlier loan as advised -6- in the notice dated 26.07.2024, under Section 13 (2) for which notice had already been issued regarding the outstanding against four accounts, totaling to Rs. 9,94,69,037.09/-, as on 31.7.2024. 7. We are of the considered opinion that the issue has already been dealt with by a Co-ordinate Bench in M/s Neelkanth Yarn vs. Punjab National Bank & others, CWP No. 4538 of 2023, decided on 2.8.2023, wherein claim was also for taking corrective action plan under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, constituted under the RBI Master Circular dated 17.3.2016. The Co-ordinate Bench after objection as such of the bank that the writ remedy is not available, relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon (2010) 8 SCC 110, Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd. Vs. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir, (2022) 5 SCC 345 and G. Vikram Kumar vs. State Bank of Hyderabad, AIR 2023, Supreme Court 2359 and held that the DRT can go into the aspect of classifying the account as NPA, where the RBI guidelines have been violated on the aspect of leading to declare the account as NPA and taking recourse -7- under the SARFAESI Act, since in the said case that position had yet to arrive as such. It was also noticed that the aspect of classifying an account as NPA is not justiciable in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. The Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in CWP No. 21657 of 2022 (O&M), titled M/s Technico Strips and Tubes Private Limited and another vs. Deustsche Bank AG and another, while deciding large number of cases on the same issue of violation of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Circular dated 17.3.2016, has also followed the judgment passed in Neelkanth Yarn’s case (supra) and dismissed the writ petitions on 18.12.2023, directing the petitioners to approach the Tribunal and as such to grant the protection for a period of twenty (20) days. 9. Keeping in view the fact that the issue stands conclusively decided by the Coordinate Bench, we feel no legal necessity and any reason as such to take a different view, which has earlier been taken. -8- 10. Resultantly, we dismiss the writ petition. However, keeping in view the fact that petition was pending since 18.11.2024, we leave it open to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy before the DRT, if so advised, within a period of two weeks from today, since there was already an interim order which shall continue for the said period only. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (G. S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin C. Negi) Judge 30th April, 2026 (kck)