The principle of constructive res judicata bars re-litigation of claims that could have been addressed in prior proceedings, establishing finality in judicial decisions.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.

1. The 1^st petitioner in W.P.(C)No.32541 of 2025 and the legal heirs of the deceased 2^nd petitioner have filed this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 17.10.2025 of the learned Single Judge in that writ petition, which was one filed invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:

“a) To declare that the failure on the part of the Central Government/RBI to implement the MSMED notification dated 29.05.2015, in particular, to ensure that the Board of Directors of the Banks/financial institutions in this country, including the respondent Bank, constitutes a committee for ‘stressed micro, small and medium enterprise’ and further to prevent the Banks and NBFCs from classifying the account of an MSME as NPA and resorting to recovery under the SARFAESI, RDB Act, IBC, NI Act, etc. in violation of the prohibition to do so as contained in paragraphs 1 and 5(4)(iii) of the said notification, amount to gross failure on their part to comply with the statutory duty cast upon them under Sections 35, 35A, 35AA, 36, 36AA of the Banking Regulation Act and Sections 45-IE of the Reserve Bank of India Act and Sections 9 and 10 of the MSMED Act;

b) To declare that the entire proceedings initiated by the respondent Bank as against the petitioner in violation of the notification dated 29.05.2015, which not a single bank/financial institution in this country has given effect to, is rendered void ab initio, still born, and that, that alone is the inevitable consequence because the notification does not provide for any penal provision for violation thereof, and that such an inevitable legal consequence is not lost or extinguished simply because an MSME, which the law recognizes as predominantly weak and financially illiterate, had failed to raise such a plea;

c) To declare that Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act , and Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, Sections 7, 9, 10 and 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, are unconstitutional, ultra vires and void and are liable to be so declared, inasmuch as the said enactments are wholly one-sided, drafted on the grossly erroneous premise that the right to relief, nay, remedies, arise only at the hands of a banker as against the borrower and that the enquiry to be conducted is wholly one-sided, or in the alternative to declare that the borrower’s right to be an actor/petitioner for the enforcement of his remedies has to be read into the said Acts;

d) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction calling for the entire records and proceedings of the action which the respondent Bank has initiated against the petitioners under Sections 13 (4) and 14 of the SARFAESI Act and Section 19 of the RDB Act, and to quash and set aside the same being illegal and void;

e) To declare that Section 34 of the RDB Act, and Section 34 of the SARFEASI Act and Section 63 which bar the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain and adjudicate the petitioner’s/borrower’s plea against the respondent Bank nay, bank/financial institution, is unconstitutional and void inasmuch as the petitioners, victims of the gross breach of contract, culpable negligence, malicious and tortious action, so too, violation of the express statutory provisions at the hands of the respondent Bank, are entitled to institute