2026:BHC-AS:4367-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.14750 OF 2025 Vardhan Agro Processing Limited and another … Petitioners Vs.

Union of India and others … Respondents Mr. Rohaan Cama a/w. Mr. T. N. Tripathi, Ms. Kalyani Wagle, Ms. Somya i/b. T.

N. Tripathi & Co. for Petitioners.

Mr. Ashutosh Mishra a/w. Mr. Viraaj Bhate for Respondent No.1-UOI.

Ms. Huzan Bhumgara a/w. Mr. Pradeep Mane and Ms. Riddhi Badheka i/b. Desai and Diwanji for Respondent No.2.

Mr. Phiroze Colabawala a/w. Ms. Pushpa Thapa and Ms. Naina Chheda i/b.

Mabale and Associates for Respondent No.3.

CORAM : MANISH PITALE &

SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.

Reserved on : JANUARY 17, 2026 Pronounced on : JANUARY 29, 2026 ORDER : (Per Justice Manish Pitale . Petitioner No.1 is categorized as a Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise (MSME), of which petitioner No.2 is the chairman and shareholder. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking directions against the respondent No.3 - Union Bank of India to implement Government Notification dated 29.05.2015 issued by the respondent No.1 - Union of India and Master Direction dated 21.07.2016 issued by the respondent No.2 - Reserve Bank of India, in order to refer the loan account of the petitioner to the Committee, for restructuring of the debt, constituted by the respondent No.3 - Bank under the aforesaid Master Direction dated 21.07.2016. The petitioners have also sought further ancillary directions.

2. The crux of the dispute between the petitioners and respondent No.3 is on the eligibility of petitioner No.1 as an MSME to the aforesaid Notification issued by respondent No.1 and the Master Direction issued by respondent No.2 - RBI, as also the Framework devised by the respondent No.2 - RBI for revival and rehabilitation of MSMEs. According to the petitioners, the petitioner No.1 is eligible under the said Framework, while the respondent No.3 - Bank has proceeded on the basis that the petitioner No.1 is not eligible. It is the case of the petitioners that from the very outset when the loan account of the petitioner No.1 showed signs of stress, the respondent No.3 - Bank was clearly made aware about the fact that the petitioner No.1 is an MSME and therefore, as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Pro Knits Vs. Board of Directors of Canara Bank and others, (2024) 10 SCC 292, it was incumbent upon the respondent No.3 - Bank to have granted the benefit of the aforesaid Framework devised by the respondent No.2 - RBI and to refer the loan account to the Committee for restructuring of debt under the said Framework. The respondent No.3 - Bank proceeded without referring the account of the petitioner No.1 to the said Committee and proposed restructuring under its own Framework. According to the respondent No.3 - Bank, the petitioner No.1 initially indicated that it would abide by directions given by the respondent No.3 - Bank, but thereafter defaulted, as a consequence of which, the account was declared as ‘Non-Performing Asset’ (NPA) and consequential steps were undertaken under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Securitization Act’).

3. The conflict between the petitioners and the respondent No.3 - Bank is on the applicability of the said Framework and in that context, of the eligibility of petitioner No.1 to take benefit of the same. The question arising in this petition requires perusal and interpretation of the said Notification as also Master Directions and Framework devised by the respondent No.2 - RBI, from time to time. But, before proceeding to consider the same, the chronology of events, in brief, needs to be appreciated.

4. On 07.03.2022, the petitioner No.1 sent a letter to the respondent No.3 - Bank, requesting for restructuring of the loan account. It was stated that due to Covid-19 pandemic condition, there was a gap in repayment of