We Build (P) Ltd. v State Bank of India (erstwhile State Bank of Travancore) & Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH MONDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 19TH ASWINA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 28391 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER:** WE BUILD (P) LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT TC 16/713, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695014., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. C. KAMALASANAN, S/O. CHELLAPPAN, AGED 80 YEARS, RESIDING AT "SHRUTHY", TC 16/712, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014. BY ADVS. K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.) MILLU DANDAPANI ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE BANK OF INDIA (ERSTWHILE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE), POOJAPPURA BRANCH, POOJAPPURA P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695012., REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF MANAGER. 2 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER / CHIEF MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA, POOJAPPURA BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695012. 3 THE CHIEF MANAGER / AUTHORIZED OFFICER STATE BANK OF INDIA, STRESSED ASSETS RECOVERY BRANCH, LMS COMPOUND, OPPOSITE MUSEUM WEST GATE, VIKAS BHAWAN P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033. WP(C) No.28391/2021 & RP No.149/2022 in WP(C) No.28391/2021 -:2:- 4 THE GENERAL MANAGER LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, STATE BANK OF INDIA, S. S. KOVIL ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001. BY ADVS. JAWAHAR JOSE CISSY MATHEWS THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.08.2022, ALONG WITH RP.149/2022, THE COURT ON 11.10.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) No.28391/2021 & RP No.149/2022 in WP(C) No.28391/2021 -:3:- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH MONDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 19TH ASWINA, 1944 RP NO. 149 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA NO. 4/2022 in WP(C) 28391/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER:** WE BUILD (P) LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT TC 16/713, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR.C.KAMALASANAN, S/O.CHELLAPPAN, AGED 80 YEARS, RESIDING AT "SHRUTHY" TC 16/712, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014. BY ADV MILLU DANDAPANI ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 4/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4:** 1 STATE BANK OF INDIA (ERSTWHILE STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE) POOJAPPURAM BRANCH, POOJAPPURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 012. REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF MANAGER. 2 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER/CHIEF MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA, POOJAPPURAM BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 012. 3 THE CHIEF MANAGER/AUTHORIZED OFFICER STATE BANK OF INDIA, STRESSED ASSETS RECOVERY BRANCH, LMS COMPOUND, OPPOSITE MUSEUM WEST GATE, WP(C) No.28391/2021 & RP No.149/2022 in WP(C) No.28391/2021 -:4:- VIKAS BHAWAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033. 4 THE GENERAL MANAGER LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, STATE BANK OF INDIA, S.S.KOVIL ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. BY ADVS. JAWAHAR JOSE CISSY MATHEWS THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.08.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).28391/2021, THE COURT ON 11.10.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) No.28391/2021 & RP No.149/2022 in WP(C) No.28391/2021 -:5:- J U D G M E N T Dated this the 11[th] day of October, 2022 The above writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings initiated by the 1[st] respondent Bank for enforcement of the security interest created by the borrower under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the SARFAESI Act). 2. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, engaged in the business of executing projects under works contract. It availed cash credit facilities from the erstwhile State Bank of Travancore, which later merged with the 1[st] respondent. Initially, a total amount of `772.52 lakhs was sanctioned as loan, which was later enhanced to `987.47 lakhs, including bank guarantee. The operating level of aggregate CCOD level fixed was `657 WP(C) No.28391/2021 & RP No.149/2022 in WP(C) No.28391/2021 -:6:- lakhs. The directors of the petitioner company stood as guarantors mortgaging five items of properties belonging to them. Those five items of properties were treated as secured assets. 3. On 30/4/2017, the 1[st] respondent classified the account of the petitioner as Non-Performing Asset (NPA), alleging the account as “out of order” for 90 days from 31/1/2017 and that the petitioner failed to pay additional cash credit loan of `40 lakhs within the specified period of 6 months. Thereafter, the 1[st] respondent initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act against the petitioner. It issued Annexure R3(a) notice dated 25/5/2017 to the petitioner under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, intimating that the loan account has already been declared as NPA and demanding to clear the entire outstanding dues. The petitioner issued Annexure R3(b) reply dated 15/7/2017 explaining that at no point in time was the account in default, and hence, there was no justification to declare the account as NPA. Later, after one year, Annexure R3(c) notice dated 4/7/2018 WP(C) No.28391/2021 & RP No.149/2022 in WP(C) No.28391/2021 -:7:- was issued with the same allegations as in Annexure R3(a). The petitioner submitted Annexure R3(d) reply to the same dated 5/9/2018. Thereafter, Annexure R3(e) communication dated 7/9/2018 was issued by the 1[st] respondent to the petitioner stating that Annexures R3(a) and R3(c) notices issued under Section 13(2) were withdrawn since inadvertent mistakes had crept therein. Thereafter, a fresh notice dated 20/9/2018 {Annexure R3(f)} curing the defects was issued by the 1[st] respondent to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam, by filing SA No.144/2019. The 1[st] respondent Bank also filed OA No.168/2019 seeking realisation of `963.28 lakhs. The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam, as per Ext.P2 order dated 21/3/2020, dismissed SA No. 144/2019 on the ground of limited jurisdiction. Challenging the said order, the petitioner preferred WP(C) No. 12035/2020 before this Court. This Court, as per the judgment dated 15[th] October 2020, dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable. However, taking note of Covid-19 pandemic WP(C) No.28391/2021 & RP No.149/2022 in WP(C) No.28391/2021 -:8:- situation and the circumstances that Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai was not holding regular sitting, time was granted to the petitioner till 31/10/2020 to challenge the order before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal by filing an appeal. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said judgment, preferred writ appeal before the Division Bench of this Court as WA No.267/2021. The Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal as per Ext. P3 judgment dated 15[th] March 2021 holding that the writ petition challenging the proceedings against the SARFAESI Act is not maintainable in view of the alternative remedy provided under the statute. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had preferred an appeal against Ext.P2 order before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal as AIR(SA) 121/2020 on 18/11/2020. However, the same was marked as defect since the petitioner failed to make the mandatory pre-deposit for entertaining the appeal, and it was dismissed for default. The petitioner challenged Ext.P3 judgment before the Apex Court as SLP No.18813/2021. The Apex Court was not inclined to interfere in the matter and dismissed WP(C) No.28391/2021 & RP No.149/2022 in WP(C) No.28391/2021 -:9:- the SLP as per Ext.P5 order. However, the petitioner was allowed to exhaust the alternative remedy against Ext.P2 order and all the contentions available to the petitioner were left open. In the meantime, the 3[rd] respondent issued Ext.P6 sale notice under the SARFAESI Act r/w proviso to R.8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2022, proclaiming the sale of five immovable properties that were mortgaged as security for the loan availed by the petitioner. Pursuant to Ext.P6 notice, one of the items of the secured assets was sold on 19/11/2021 for an amount of `1,66,40,000/- and the said amount has been adjusted towards the loan amount. Thereafter on 26/11/2021, Ext.P8, a fresh sale notice was issued proclaiming the sale of the remaining four items of properties. It was at that juncture; the petitioner filed the above writ petition challenging Exts.P6 and P8 sale notices. The main prayer in the writ petition is to quash Exts.P6 and P8. 4. I have heard Sri.Millu Dandapani, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Jawahar Jose, the learned counsel for the WP(C) No.28391/2021 & RP No.149/2022 in WP(C) No.28391/2021 -:10:- respondents. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Millu Dandapani submitted that the 1[st] respondent Bank classified the account of the petitioner as NPA without proper cause, floating all regulatory requirements to be followed under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act while declaring the account as NPA. The learned counsel further submitted that the 1[st] respondent cannot proceed under Section 13(4) against the petitioner since they have not complied with the mandatory provision under Section 13(3-A). According to the learned counsel, the respondents did not follow the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and RBI guidelines and prudential norms on IRAC before classifying the account of the petitioner as NPA, and the entire process initiated by the respondents under the SARFAESI Act is unsustainable as the classification of the account of the petitioner as NPA itself was illegal. In these circumstances, the action of the 1[st] respondent Bank to continue with Exts.P6 and P8 sale notices and Ext.P9 subsequent sale notice against the secured assets of the WP(C) No.28391/2021 & RP No.149/2022 in WP(C) No.28391/2021 -:11:- petitioner is illegal, and all proceedings pursuant to Exts.P6, P8 and P9 are liable to be quashed, submitted the counsel. The counsel added that the Apex court while passing Ext.P5 order, granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and exhaust the alternative remedy. However, the petitioner could not do the same since the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal was not functioning due to the pandemic, and it was under these circumstances that the petitioner approached this court with the writ petition. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents Sri. Jawahar Jose submitted that the petitioner cannot maintain a second writ petition agitating the same contentions which were agitated by it in the securitisation application filed as SA No.144/2019 invoking S.17 of the SARFAESI Act, which resulted in Ext.P2 order. The learned counsel further submitted that the classification of the loan account as NPA on 30/4/2017 was perfectly legal and in accordance with the statutory provisions and that there is absolutely no violation of statutory requirements WP(C) No.28391/2021 & RP No.149/2022 in WP(C) No.28391/2021 -:12:- of the SARFAESI Act. The learned counsel also submitted that the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable since an efficacious statutory remedy is available to an aggrieved party for any of the measures initiated by the secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act. 7. Though the main prayer in the writ petition is to quash Exts.P6 and P8 sale notices, the petitioner, in effect, challenges the proceedings initiated by the 1[st] respondent Bank for enforcement of security interest u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner challenged Exts.P6, and P8 sale notices mainly on the following grounds. - I. The classification of the loan account as NPA on 30/4/2017 was illegal and without following the mandatory procedures under the SARFAESI Act. It is alleged that the 1[st] respondent Bank termed the account of the petitioner as NPA prematurely. - II. The 1[st] respondent Bank violated the provisions of S.13(3-A) of the SARFAESI Act. It is alleged that the 2[nd] respondent WP(C) No.28391/2021 & RP No.149/2022 in WP(C) No.28391/2021 -:13:- has not given a reply to the objection submitted by the petitioner to Annexure R3(b) representation dated 15/7/2017 u/s 13(3-A). According to the petitioner, since the reply was not given by the authorized officer within 15 days, it should be presumed that the objection given by the petitioner is accepted. III. The sale, as per Exts.P6 and P8 notices, if conducted before the petitioner is given an opportunity to advance and contest its case on merits, will cause irreparable injury and great loss to it. IV. The petitioner could not approach the appellate authority under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act dehors the direction in Ext.P5 order of the Apex Court as the Appellate Tribunal was not having regular sitting from 9/10/2021 to 8/3/2022 due to pandemic. So, by virtue of the directions of the Apex court, the petitioner is fully justified in filing the writ petition invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. WP(C) No.28391/2021 & RP No.149/2022 in WP(C) No.28391/2021 -:14:- 8. The petitioner originally filed a Securitisation Application as SA No.144/2019 invoking S.17 of the SARFAESI Act at the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam. It was filed mainly on the ground that the classification of the loan account as NPA was illegal as the petitioner's account can never be termed to be “out of order” within the ambit and scope of the circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India. It was contended that the 1[st] respondent classified the loan account as NPA on the 89[th] day of irregularity of account, though the same could be done only on the 91[st] day. It was further contended that the 2[nd] respondent, though obliged to give a reply and address the objection raised by the petitioner u/s 13(3-A) to the demand notice u/s 13(2), the same was not done within a period of 15 days in respect of Annexures R3(a) and R3(c) demand notices and so further proceedings initiated by the authorized officer is impermissible and legally unsustainable. The reliefs sought by the petitioner at the Debts Recovery Tribunal were, among other things, to declare that the classification of the loan account as NPA was illegal and WP(C) No.28391/2021 & RP No.149/2022 in WP(C) No.28391/2021 -:15:- further to declare that the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act against it are impermissible to be proceeded with, as the 2[nd] respondent has not considered the objection submitted by it to the demand notice issued u/s 13(2). The Tribunal vide Ext.P2 order found that the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs sought in the Securitisation Application and accordingly dismissed the application. The petitioner challenged Ext.P2 order before this court in WP(C) No.12035/2020, invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This court, by judgment dated 15/10/2020, declined to exercise the jurisdiction and directed the petitioner to approach the statutory appellate forum against Ext.P2 order invoking Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner challenged the said judgment by filing an appeal before the Division Bench as WA No.267/2021. By Ext.P3 judgment dated 15/3/2021, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the judgment of the Single Bench. Though a review petition was filed against the judgment of the Division Bench as RP No.592/2021, it was later withdrawn on 9/11/2021. The WP(C) No.28391/2021 & RP No.149/2022 in WP(C) No.28391/2021 -:16:- petitioner thereafter approached the Apex Court by filing Special Leave Petition, challenging the judgment in WP(C) No.12035/2020 and WA No.267/2021. By Ext.P5 order dated 18/11/2021, the said petition was dismissed by the Apex Court. However, the Apex Court left open the right of the petitioner to efficaciously exhaust the statutory remedy as against Ext.P2 order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal. By that time, the petitioner had already challenged Ext.P2 order before the Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing AIR(SA) No.121/2020 invoking the jurisdiction u/s 18 of the SARFAESI Act. The said appeal was dismissed for default as the petitioner failed to deposit the amount as mandated in the first proviso to S.18 of the SARFAESI Act and cure the defect noted by the Registry. A perusal of the pleadings in this writ petition would show that it is nothing but a verbatim reproduction of the grounds which were raised in SA No.144/2019. All the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition were taken by it in the Securitisation Application filed as SA No.144/2019, which resulted in Ext.P2 order. As stated already, the Single Bench, as well as WP(C) No.28391/2021 & RP No.149/2022 in WP(C) No.28391/2021 -:17:- the Division Bench of this court, declined to interfere with Ext.P2 order under the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court found that the noninterference by this court was justified and dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner by Ext.P5 order. 9. S.17 of the SARFAESI Act speaks of the remedies available to any person, including the borrower, who may have a grievance against the action taken by the secured creditor under sub-section (4) of S.13. Such an aggrieved person can make an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal within 45 days from the date on which action is taken under that sub-section. S.18 provides for an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against any order made by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under S.17. S.34 lays down that no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter that a Tribunal or Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine. It further lays down that no injunction shall be granted by any Court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken under the SARFAESI WP(C) No.28391/2021 & RP No.149/2022 in WP(C) No.28391/2021 -:18:- Act or the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act. S.35 declares that the provisions of the Act shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law. Thus, the SARFAESI Act itself contemplates an efficacious remedy for the borrower or any person affected by an action under S.13(4) of the Act. 10. It is well-settled that ordinarily, relief under Art.226/227 of the Constitution of India is not available if an efficacious alternative remedy is available to any aggrieved person. [See _**United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon**_ (2010) 8 SCC 110, _**Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev v. State of Maharashtra**_ (2011) 2 SCC 782, _**Sri. Siddeshwara Co-operative Bank Ltd., v. Ikbal**_ (2013) 10 SCC 83, _**Agarwal Tracom Pvt. Ltd v. Punjab National Bank**_ (2018) 1 SCC 626, _**State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C.**_ (2018) 3 SCC 85, _**CIT v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal**_ (2014) 1 SCC 603]. In _**Satyawati**_ WP(C) No.28391/2021 & RP No.149/2022 in WP(C) No.28391/2021 -:19:- _**Tondon**_ (supra) the Apex Court, while dealing with S.17 of the SARFAESI Act, had held that where an effective remedy was available to the aggrieved person, the High Court must insist that before availing the remedy under Article 226, the alternative remedies available to him under the relevant statute are exhausted. In paragraph 34, the Apex Court expressed its concern thus: _“It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncements of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Art.226 for passing orders which have a serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future, the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection”._ Recently, the Apex court in _**Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir and Others**_ [(2022) 5 SCC 345] has held that if proceedings are initiated under the SARFAESI Act and/or any proposed action is to be taken, and the borrower is aggrieved by any of the actions of the private bank/bank/ARC, the borrower WP(C) No.28391/2021 & RP No.149/2022 in WP(C) No.28391/2021 -:20:- has to avail the remedy under the SARFAESI Act, and no writ petition would lie and/ or is maintainable and/or entertainable. 11. Here also, even though the prayer in the writ petition is to quash Exts.P6 and P8 sale notices, the petitioner, in effect, challenges the enforcement measures initiated u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner has no case at all that the issuance of Exts.P6 and P8 is bad for any procedural violation of S.13 of the SARFAESI Act or Rule 8 or 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules. The petitioner cannot agitate the aspects which were originally considered in Ext.P2 order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal on merits. It is true, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Millu Dandapani, that the petitioner was justified in filing the writ petition invoking Art.226 of the Constitution of India since, at the time of its filing, the appellate tribunal was not having regular sitting. However, the Apex Court, in its order in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10911/2021 dated 16/12/2021, has made it clear that the power given to the High court to entertain the matters falling within the WP(C) No.28391/2021 & RP No.149/2022 in WP(C) No.28391/2021 -:21:- jurisdiction of DRTs and DRATs under Art.226 of the Constitution of India was purely as a stop-gap arrangement and once the Tribunal is constituted, the matters could be relegated to the Tribunal by the High Court. As the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal are currently operational, the petitioner cannot contend that this court, under the exercise of the jurisdiction under 226 of the Constitution of India, must adjudicate the dispute on merits. The remedy open to the petitioner is to pursue the appeal filed by it at the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal under Section 18 or to challenge Exts.P6, P8, and P9 notices at the Debts Recovery Tribunal invoking S.17 of the SARFAESI Act if it is permissible under law. 12. In the light of the above findings, the writ petition fails, and it is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to invoke the alternative remedy available to it, if any, under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, RP No.149/2022 also stands dismissed. WP(C) No.28391/2021 & RP No.149/2022 in WP(C) No.28391/2021 -:22:- The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Millu Dandapani submits that the interim order granted by this court in RP No.149/2022 on 14/2/2022, which was further extended, may be continued for a period of three weeks. The learned counsel for the respondents Sri.Jawahar Jose strongly opposed the same. However, having heard both sides, I am of the view that the interim order granted by this court on 14/2/2022 can be continued for a period of three weeks from today. Ordered accordingly. **SD/-** **DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH** **JUDGE** **Rp** WP(C) No.28391/2021 & RP No.149/2022 in WP(C) No.28391/2021 -:23:- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28391/2021** |PETITIONER EXHIBITS|| |---|---| |Exhibit P1|TRUE COPY OF THE ARRANGEMENT LETTER| ||BEARING NO.AGM I/TVM/PJP/ADV DATED| ||30.03.2010.| |Exhibit P2|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE| ||DRT - 2, ERNAKULAM DATED 21.03.2020 IN| ||S.A.144 OF 2019.| |Exhibit P3|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE| ||DIVISION BENCH OF THIS HON'BLE COURT| ||DATED 15.03.2021 IN W.A.NO.267 OF 2021.| |Exhibit P4|TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM| ||ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE LEARNED CJM,| ||THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN CMP 165 OF 2021 IN| ||MC 946 OF 2019 DATED 15.09.2021 TO THE| ||ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER.| |Exhibit P4(a)|TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM| ||ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE LEARNED CJM,| ||THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN CMP 856 OF 2021 IN| ||MC 119 OF 2021 DATED 15.09.2021 TO THE| ||ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER.| |Exhibit P5|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE| ||SUPREME COURT IN S.L.P.(C) NO.18813 OF| ||2021 DATED 18.11.2021.| |Exhibit P6|TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF SALE ISSUED| ||BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEARING REF.| ||NO.SARB/TVM/SUN/1126/2021-22<br>DATED| ||11.10.2021.| |Exhibit P7|TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION| ||SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD| ||RESPONDENT DATED 22.11.2021.| |Exhibit P8|TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF SALE ISSUED| ||BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEARING REF.| ||NO.SARB/TVM/SUN/1776/2021-22<br>DATED| ||26.11.2021.| WP(C) No.28391/2021 & RP No.149/2022 in WP(C) No.28391/2021 ## -:24:- |Exhibit P9|TRUE<br>COPY<br>OF<br>SALE<br>NOTICE| |---|---| ||NO.SARB/TVM/SUN/2146/2021-2022<br>DATED| ||4.1.2022 PUBLISHED BY THE THIRD| ||RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P10|TRUE COPY OF ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF THE| ||PETITIONER FROM 1.1.2017 TO 20.6.2017| ||ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK.| |Exhibit P11|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.4.2017| ||SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE| ||RESPONDENT BANK.| |Exhibit P12|TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY| ||THE REPRESENTATIVE OF PETITIONER TO THE| ||HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA ON| ||11.10.2021.| |RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS|| |Annexure R3(a)|TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 25.5.2017| ||ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT BANK TO| ||THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF| ||THE SARFAESI ACT.| |Annexure R3(b)|TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIOND ATED| ||15.7.2017 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO| ||ANNEXURE R1(A)| |Annexure R3(c)|TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 4.7.2018| ||ISSUED BY THE FIRST RSPONDENT BANK UNDER| ||SECTION 13(2) OF THE SARFAESI ACT TO THE| ||PETITIONER.| |Annexure R3(d)|TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED| ||5.9.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO| ||ANNEXURE R1(C) NOTICE.| |Annexure R3(e)|TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 7.9.2018 TO| ||ANNEXURE R1(D) ISSUED BY THE BANK TO THE| ||PETITIONER.| |Annexure R3(f)|TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.9.2018| ||ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT BANK TO| ||THE<br>PETITIONER,<br>ITS<br>GUARANTORS,| ||SURETIES, UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF THE| ||SARFAESI ACT.| WP(C) No.28391/2021 & RP No.149/2022 in WP(C) No.28391/2021 ## -:25:- - Annexure R3(g) TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS DATED 1.11.2018 RAISED BYTHE PETITIONER TO ANNEXURE R1(F) NOTICE. - Annexure R3(h) TRUE COPY FO THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO ANNEXURE R1(G) OBJECTION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER ON 8.11.2018. - Annexure R3(i) TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT INDICATING THE RECEIPT OF ANNEUXRE R1(H) NOTICE ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETIITONER. - Annexure R3(j) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. - Annexure R3(k) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 30.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK TO THE PETITIONER N REPLY TO ANNEXURE R1(J) - Annexure R3(l) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 7.12.2018 ISSEUD BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. - Annexure R3(m) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 12.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER IN RESPONSE TO ANNEXURE R1(L) - Annexure R3(n) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. - Annexure R3(o) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 27.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER IN RESPONSE TO ANNEXURE R1(L) - Annexure R3(p) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TOT HE 1ST RESPONDENT Annexure R3(q) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 3.1.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIOENR IN RESPONSE TO ANNEXURE R1(P) Annexure R3(r) TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION NOTICE UNDER WP(C) No.28391/2021 & RP No.149/2022 in WP(C) No.28391/2021 -:26:- THE SARFAESI ACT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIOENR DATED 26.2.2019. Annexure R3(s) TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER PUBLICATION DATED 1.3.2019 IN KERALA KAUMUDI WITH REGARD TO POSSESSION NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Annexure R3(t) TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER PUBLICAITON DATED 1.3.2019 IN NEW INDIAN EXPRESS WITH REGARD TO POSSESSION NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Annexure R3(u) TRUE COPYOF THE LETTER DATED 20.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK TO THE PETITIONER FOR A ONE TIME SETTLEMENT AS PER THE SPECIAL SCHEME THAT WAS IN FORCE THEN. Annexure R3(v) TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 23.1.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE ONE TIME SETTLEMENT OFFER Annexure R3(w) TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 1.12.2021 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO CMP 165/2021 IN MC 946/2019 AND MC 119/2021. Annexure R3(x) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.9.2021 ALONG WITH THE UNREADABLE COPY OF THE ALLEGED PRESIDENTIAL DECREE Annexure R3(y) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE MUSEUM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 20.10.2021 AGAINST K.S.SHYLESH, THE DIRECTOR LEGAL OF THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS. EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE DATED 6.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER BANK TO THE AUCTION PURCHASER. WP(C) No.28391/2021 & RP No.149/2022 in WP(C) No.28391/2021 -:27:- ## **APPENDIX OF RP 149/2022** PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28/01/2022 IN IA 4 OF 2022 IN WPC 28391 OF 2022 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. ## RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Annexure R3(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT 67145274935 Annexure R3(B) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF PRUDENTIALNORMS ON INCOME RECONGITION, ASSET CLASSIFICATION AND PROVISIONING PERTAINING TO ADVANCES DATED 1.7.2015 ISSUED BY THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA Annexure R3(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT 67178847219 Annexure R3(D) TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT 67327920667 Annexure R3(E) A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT 67360245354 Annexure R3(F) TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT 67107958411 Annexure R3(G) TRUE COPY OF THE VALUATION REPORT Annexure R3(H) TRUE COPY OF THE VALUATION REPORT Annexure R3(I) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 4.1.2021 OF THE DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI Annexure R3(J) TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 29.9.2021 TOGETHER WITH THE FABRICATED PRESIDENTIAL DECREE WHICHW AS GIVEN TO THE CHIEF GNEERAL MANAGER OF THE BANK BY THE DIRECTOR (LEGAL) OF THE REVIEW PETITIONER COMPANY WP(C) No.28391/2021 & RP No.149/2022 in WP(C) No.28391/2021 -:28:- Annexure R3(K) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED SUBMITTED BY THE BANK BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUSEUM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM