The bank holds a valid lien over the salary account to secure repayment of loans, and the statutory protections under Section 60 CPC do not apply to non-attachment actions by the bank.

Judgment :

[WA Nos.3077/2025, 3176/2025]

Muralee Krishna S., J.

1. W.A.No.3077 of 2025 is filed by respondents 1 to 3, and W.A.No.3176 of 2025 is filed by the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.34654 of 2025, invoking the provisions under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 14.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition. Since the point to be decided in both these writ appeals is the same, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience of reference, the parties are referred to in this judgment as they were referred to in the writ petition.

2. The 1stpetitioner is a Senior Technical Assistant in the Fluid Control Research Institute (FCRI), which is a Central Government undertaking. The 2ndpetitioner is the daughter of the 1stpetitioner, who is running a proprietorship firm, by name ‘A & A Carton’, which is engaged in the manufacturing of corrugated carton boxes. The 2ndpetitioner applied for financial assistance from the 2ndrespondent Canara Bank, SME, Kanjikode branch, under the Prime Minister’s Employment Generation Scheme (PMEGPScheme) with a project cost of Rs.50 lakhs. For the loan, the 1stpetitioner stood as a guarantor and had extended the property on which the unit is running as collateral security, which is in the joint name of the 1stpetitioner and his wife. The 3rdpetitioner is yet another guarantor to the loan. The 1stpetitioner is maintaining his salary account with the 3rdrespondent, Canara Bank,Sultanpetbranch,Palakkad. The 1strespondent is the regional office of the Canara Bank, having administrative control over respondents 2 and 3.

2.1. The PMEGP Scheme was implemented through the Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC). As per the scheme, the loan availed by the 2^nd petitioner is eligible for 35% of the project cost as a percentage of Margin Money Subsidy. The petitioners state that, as per the PMEGP Scheme guidelines, the 2^nd petitioner has to deposit her contribution and a copy of the EDP training certificate with photo and other number to the financing bank within thirty days of receiving the communication of the sanction of the loan. As per Clause 11.17 of the PMEGP Scheme, the financing bank will release the first instalment of the loan and submit the claim for Margin Money Subsidy through the online portal of the nodal Bank/KVIC portal. The petitioners produced the circular dated 01.06.2022 pertaining to the PMEGP Scheme as Ext.P1 in the writ petition.

2.2 According to the petitioners, as per Ext.P1 guidelines, the 2^nd respondent, which is the financing bank, was supposed to file the application for Margin Money Subsidy as soon as the 2^nd petitioner had deposited her contribution and the copy of the EDP training certificate to the Bank as per the procedure prescribed under the PMEGP Scheme. As per Ext.P2 sanction letter dated 30.11.2022 issued by the 2^nd respondent, the term loan of Rs.40.54 lakhs was sanctioned for the construction of a shed and purchase of machines, apart from the working capital limit of 6.9 lakhs sanctioned for the day-to-day business requirements. The 2^nd petitioner made her contribution of Rs.2,14,000/- and had deposited all the EDP training certificates and related documents with the 2^nd respondent Bank, and hence, the 2^nd respondent Bank was supposed to make the application for Margin Money Subsidy at the earliest with the KVIC through the portal. It is the further case of the petitioners that the 2^nd respondent Bank failed to complete the necessary formalities in connection with the availment of the lo