AT CHANDIGARH.

Date of Decision: 05.05.2025.

Dinesh Puri Partner of M/s Kuku Exports ....Petitioner.

VERSUS Punjab National Bank and another ....Respondents.

****

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. C.S. Pasricha, Advocate and Mr. Sushil K. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondents.

****

ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (Oral)

The petitioner has challenged the demand notice dated

10.12.2024 (Annexure P-5) issued by the respondents under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest, Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SARFAESI Act'), for an outstanding amount of Rs.10,38,04,919.60.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the firm (M/s Kuku Exports) of the petitioner is an MSME unit and its loan account was classified as NPA on 21.06.2021 without any attempt on the part of the respondent-Bank for restructuring the same, which is in violation of the notification dated 29.05.2015 (Annexure P-3) containing instructions for the Framework for Revival and Rehabilitation of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises issued by the Central Government, RBI Guidelines of 2016 and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Pro Knits vs. The Board of Directors of Canara Bank, 2024(3) RCR (Civil) 690. He also submits that although the respondents had stated that the account of the firm of the petitioner was restructured, but it is incorrect as the respondents are relying upon the meeting held on 10.03.2021 while as per the UDYAM registration certificate issued by the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (Annexure P-2) the firm had been registered as an MSME only on

18.03.2021.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank, while referring to the written statement filed by it, submits that the account of the firm of the petitioner had been duly restructured vide sanction letter dated 17.08.2022 (Annexure R-1/1) and various other concessions were granted to the petitioner which have also been utilized by him. The petitioner had also submitted an offer for One Time Settlement for an amount of Rs.3 crores on 26.03.2025, but the same was not accepted, as the amount which was due as on

30.11.2024, was over Rs.10 crores.

4. Heard.

5. The petitioner, who is stated to be a partner of M/s Kuku Exports, had availed credit facilities from the respondent-Bank. The respondent has issued a demand notice dated 10.12.2024 (Annexure P-5) under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act for a sum of Rs.10,38,04,919.60 which was due as on 30.11.2024. It is admitted case of the respondent-Bank that the firm of the petitioner is an MSME unit and, therefore, it was entitled to restructuring of the loan account. The firm of the petitioner is stated to have been registered under UDYAM as an MSME unit on 18.03.2021 in terms of the notification dated 26.06.2020 issued by the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, whereby MSMEs were required to register before 31.03.2021 under UDYAM to avail or to continue availing benefits of different schemes.

6. The respondent-Bank is stated to have restructured the loan account of the petitioner’s firm vide sanction letter dated 17.08.2022 (Annexure R-1/1). The petitioner is stated to have agreed to the restructuring plan as the sanction letter bears the signatures of the petitioner. The restructuring was carried out on the agreed terms and conditions which included the following concessions as per the sanction letter dated

17.08.2022:-

“(i) Waiver of processing fee for the FY 2022-23 (ii) Upfront fee applicable in WCTL & FITL (iii) Waiver of penal charges to be levied on account of late closure of Current Account with SBI on 26.07.2021 for not adhering to terms & sanction of previous sanction.

(iv) Restructuring was allowed a moratorium period of 24 months (interest during this period was to be paid as and when charged) and installments were to be paid