Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : BY ADVS. MARIA NEDUMPARA SHAMEEM FAYIZ V.P.
For the Respondent: BY ADVS. C.K.KARUNAKARAN S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI ABEL TOM BENNY SHIFNA MUHAMMED SHUKKUR LEKSHMI P. NAIR KRISHNA SURESH K.V.KRISHNAKUMAR MEKHA MANOJ D.PREM KAMATH TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL) AARON ZACHARIAS BENNY CLINT JUDE LEWIS BIJITHA B. BOSE JYOTHIKA KRISHNA ALAN J YOGYAVEEDU BENNY P. THOMAS (SR.)

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The petitioners, who claim to be MSMEs, did not raise their MSME status prior to the classification of their accounts as Non-Performing Assets (NPAs). Their claims for benefits under the MSME revival framework were made belatedly, after the accounts had already been classified as NPAs, which is contrary to the established legal principles and guidelines (!) (!) .

2. The law clearly states that if a borrower does not notify the bank of their MSME status before the account is classified as NPA, they cannot later invoke the benefits of the MSME framework. The borrower’s failure to act diligently at the appropriate time precludes subsequent claims (!) (!) (!) .

3. The borrower’s conduct, including previous litigations and participation in the recovery process without objection, has been considered as waiver and acquiescence, disqualifying them from raising the MSME status at a later stage (!) (!) .

4. The statutory and procedural framework for MSME benefits is mandatory and prevails over optional guidelines or frameworks. The notifications issued under the MSME Act and the RBI guidelines are binding, and their non-compliance by the borrowers results in the dismissal of their claims (!) (!) .

5. For loans exceeding a specified threshold (above Rs.25 crore), the restructuring and recovery process is governed by separate guidelines, which the petitioners’ liabilities fall under, thus excluding them from the MSME-specific framework (!) (!) (!) .

6. The legal principles emphasize that proceedings initiated without proper adherence to the prescribed procedures and without prior assertion of MSME status are invalid. The courts have consistently held that claims for benefits under the MSME framework must be made prior to the classification of the account as NPA (!) (!) (!) .

7. The law discourages piecemeal litigation and deliberate fragmentation of issues to gain procedural advantages. The petitioners’ multiple proceedings and the timing of their claims are viewed as an abuse of process and are thus rejected (!) (!) (!) .

8. The court has reaffirmed its stance that the law is binding and that earlier judgments and guidelines must be followed. The petitioners’ claims are dismissed because they did not adhere to the procedural requirements and raised their claims belatedly (!) (!) .

9. The conduct of the petitioners, including their participation in the recovery process and previous litigations, has been deemed as a waiver of their right to later challenge the proceedings on the ground of MSME status or procedural irregularities (!) (!) .

10. The court has also expressed concern over the unauthorized recording and circulation of proceedings, which may constitute contempt of court, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the dignity and integrity of judicial processes (!) (!) (!) .

These points collectively underscore that the legal framework and procedural requirements for claiming MSME benefits are strict and must be adhered to at the appropriate time, failing which such claims are barred and dismissed.