JUDGMENT :

M.M. SATHAYE, J.

1. These group of Petitions raise a common issue involving a challenge to the action of Respondent Banks or Non-Banking Financial Companies, based on a Notification dated 29th May, 2015 issued under Section 9 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short “MSMED Act”). This notification is hereinafter referred to as “the said Notification” for short.

2. It is specifically agreed between all the Petitioners and all the Respondent-Banks or Non-Banking Financial Companies (for short “NBFC”) appearing through their respective advocates including Mr. Nedumpara for all Petitioners, that presently, without going into facts and merits of individual cases, only the ground based on said Notification will be considered and depending on the outcome on the said issue, further directions would be passed. In that view of the matter, this common order is being passed.

3. By these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners, who are stated to be duly registered under the MSMED Act, and who are borrowers who have taken loans or other financial assistance from the Respondent Banks/NBFCs, have challenged the very action of declaring them as Non-Performing Assets (NPA) under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “SARFAESI Act, 2002”), without following the procedure of restructuring as contemplated under the said Notification. The basic challenge of all the Petitioner MSMEs, which is presently under consideration, is essentially that none of the Respondent Banks/NBFCs have followed the procedure as provided under the said Notification, for identifying the incipient stress undergone by the Petitioners and its consequent due classification in the Special Mention Account categories SMA-0, SMA-1 and SMA-2 before classifying them as Non-Performing Assets. The argument, in essence is that, if the said procedure is not followed, then the very action of Respondent-Banks/NBFCs of classifying the Petitioners as NPAs is illegal, and if that be so, no notices under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, could have been issued. It is further argued that if notices under Section 13(2) could not have been issued to the Petitioners, then all the further actions, which are currently pending at various stages under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, against the Petitioners, are void ab initio, since their foundation itself is illegal.

4. For the purpose of clarity, the all encompassing prayers made by the Petitioner in the lead petition, which are stated to be more or less identical, in all the matters, are reproduced below :

a) to declare that the MSME Act in so far as it has not created a special forum/tribunal to enforce the rights and obligations/remedies which it has created in addition to those rights/obligations/remedies recognized by the common law, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal/Civil Court is not ousted;

b) to declare that the SARFAESI Act, 2002, is not applicable to the case of the Petitioner since the SARFAESI Act, 2002, is the earlier law qua the MSMED Act, 2006, which (MSMED Act) is a special Act to deal with the MSME and has exhaustively provides the mechanism to deal with stressed incipient account of MSME borrower in the view of objective of the MSMED Act i.e., to aim at providing nurture and care to MSME before initiating recovery;

c) to declare that the Petitioners are entitled to be compensated from the Respondent No. 1 for the loss and injury which it has suffered on account of the gross breach of trust, culpable negligence, and malicious and tortious action at the hands of DHFL and their officers, which loss and injury far exceeds the very claim of the Respondents as against the Petitioner;

d) to declare that the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are vested with no enforceable rights as against the Petitioner in as much as the loss, injury and damages suffered by the Petitioner on acco