Court dismissed petitions citing abuse of legal process due to repetitive filings with identical prayers, thus underscoring judicial efficiency principles.

1. Heard Sri Mathews J. Nedumpara (through Video Conferencing) along with Sri Zain Abbas, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.7 and 8, Sri Sanjay Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 6, Sri Raj Mohan Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel for State - respondents and Sri Amit Shukla, learned counsel for respondent No.12.

2. Present petition has been filed seeking following reilefs:

a. To declare that the S.13 of the SARFAESI Act , and S.19 of the RDB Act , S.7, S.9, S.10 and S.95 of the IBC 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;

b. To declare that S.34 of the RDB Act , and S.34 of the SARFAESI Act and S.63 of the IBC 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 an action / Petition as against the Respondent Bank for the enforcement of the Petitioners' right as against them;

c. To declare that the Petitioner being an MSME within the meaning of S.7 and S.8 of the MSMED Act of 2006, it is entitled to the benefits of the said Act and, in particular, the notification S.O. 1432 (E) dated 29.5.2025 issued by the Central Government under S.9 of the Act which provides for a mechanism of resolution of stress of MSMEs, as also, the circulars and guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India under S.10 of the MSMED Act and further that no proceedings for recovery of the amounts due by the MSMEs to banks / financial institutions, nay, even operational creditors, shall lie against the Petitioner under the SARFAESI Act , RDB Act , IBC , Negotiable Instruments Act or any other law, for recovery of the amounts allegedly due, inasmuch as the MSMED Act being a special law / later law in relation to the aforesaid enactments, the MSMED Act will prevail over them and recovery can be made only in accordance with Art.5 (4) (iii) of the aforesaid notification dated 29.5.2015;

d. To declare that the MSMED Act insofar as it has not created a special forum / tribunal to enforce the inter - se rights and obligations / remedies, which it has created in addition to those rights / obligations / remedies recognized by the common law, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not ousted, for it is impossible to oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court without providing for an alternative forum / tribunal to adjudicate the inter se disputes between parties who are governed by the Act, and further as a corollary thereof, the DRTs, NCLTs created under the RDB Act , 1993 and the Companies Act, 2013 are invested of no jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute arising out of / involving the MSMED Act ;

e. To declare that the entire recovery steps initiated by Respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act or any other law, is without jurisdiction, illegal and void inasmuch as the Respondent are not entitled to take recourse to any f