JUDGMENT :

Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.

1. The petitioner prays for a direction on the respondent State Bank of India to abide by a Letter of Arrangement dated 28th June, 2021 and give effect to the same. The petitioner prays for a consequential order on the Bank to give the benefit of the said Letter of Arrangement to the petitioner. The petitioner was served with notices from April, 2022 under sections 13(2) and 13(4) of The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI) and the petitioner has filed an appropriate application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Kolkata. The parties are contesting the said proceedings.

2. The respondent Bank, through its learned counsel, takes the point of maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of the petitioner having challenged the impugned notice under the provisions of 2002 Act by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court which cannot be done according to the respondent. Counsel submits that the Bank has also filed proceedings under section 19 of The Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 before the DRT, Kolkata and that the issues raised by the petitioner in this writ petition can be urged by the parties before the DRT.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner opposes the issue of maintainability on the ground that the petitioner has restricted his prayer only to the Letter of Arrangement/restructuring dated 28th June, 2021 which the Bank had suppressed from the petitioner at the material point of time.

4. The peculiar facts of the present case are required to be narrated for answering the point of maintainability. The facts, in brief, are stated as follows.

5. The petitioner had three separate transactions with the respondent Bank which consisted of a cash credit loan of 3.50 crores, a housing loan and a vehicle loan. The letters of sanction of the said three loans are on record. It is an undisputed fact that there was no default on the part of the petitioner in any of these three accounts until March, 2021. This would appear from the schedule forming part of records. From the schedule, it would appear that the payment dates of the Letters of Credit (LC) were 23rd December, 2019 to 18th January, 2021. The amounts under the Letter of Credit only fell due in March, 2021 and the amount was approximately Rs. 162 lacs. Hence, the petitioner’s accounts could only become NPA after 90 days from March, 2021 which would be June, 2021. The limits were renewed on 2nd April, 2021 by another twelve months from 10th March, 2021. This was due to the fact that the accounts had not become NPA even though amounts under the LCs had fallen due. The accounts were in fact regular as of 2nd April, 2021 when the Bank renewed the limits as stated above. The letter of sanction dated 2nd April, 2021 described, as the Letter of Arrangement, is part of records. The letter has been addressed by the Bank to the proprietor of Kohlbros Wireless Solutions, namely the petitioner.

6. The petitioner thereafter applied for restructuring on 28th May, 2021 in accordance with the Reserve Bank of India Circular dated 17th March, 2016. The Framework for Revival and Rehabilitation of MSMEs provided in the said Circular reflects that the banks should identify incipient stress in the account by creating three sub-categories under the Special Mention Account (SMA) category as given in the Table under clause 2 of the Circular. SMA-2 provides for principal or interest payment becoming overdue between 60-90 days as the basis for classification. The said clause further provides that on the basis of the above early warning signals, the branch maintaining the account should consider forwarding the traced accounts with aggregate loan limits above Rs.10 lacs to the committee under para 3.3 of the Circular within five working days for suitable corrective action plan. Clause 2.1 further provides that forwarding account to the committee for a Corrective Actio