Bombay HC Upholds Banks' Decision as Nineteen MSMEs Lose Battle Against NPA Classification

Bombay HC Upholds Banks' Decision as Nineteen MSMEs Lose Battle Against NPA Classification

The Bombay High Court has recently rejected a series of petitions filed by nineteen micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs). These petitions contested the determination by banks and non-banking financial companies (NBFCs) that classified them as non-performing assets (NPAs).

While rendering this decision, a division bench comprising Justices BP Colabawalla and MM Sathaye dismissed a contention presented by the MSMEs.

The argument asserted that banks and NBFCs were obligated to first implement the revival and rehabilitation measures outlined in a 2015 notification under the Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act) before classifying MSMEs as non-performing assets (NPAs).

The High Court concluded that, according to the said notification, it was incumbent upon the MSMEs to submit an application to the banks or NBFCs to initiate the revival and rehabilitation process.

In essence, the High Court clarified that the onus for initiating the rehabilitation or restructuring process does not lie with the banks or NBFCs; rather, it is the responsibility of the MSMEs to formally submit an application for such proceedings under the specified notification.

"A conjoint reading of Clause 1(1) and Clause 1(3) of the said Notification, leads to an indisputable interpretation that the said Notification can be pressed into service only and only after the MSME [such as the Petitioners] approaches the Banks/NBFCs with an appropriate application supported by an affidavit of the authorized person," the Court held.

Furthermore, the Court emphasized that without receiving formal intimation through applications, it would be challenging for banks or NBFCs to identify the MSMEs facing repayment stress, especially considering the substantial number of MSMEs that have obtained loans.
 
The highlighted notification, dated May 29, 2015, was issued under Section 9 of the MSMED Act. This notification outlined the establishment of a committee comprising bank officers and independent experts specializing in MSMEs. The committee's mandate was to formulate and execute a corrective action plan for MSMEs encountering financial stress.
 
The mentioned notification outlined the categorization of MSMEs into different types of Special Mention Accounts (SMA). In their plea before the High Court, the MSMEs contended that as this procedure had not been adhered to in their case, the Non-Performing Asset (NPA) declarations made under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act of 2002 (SARFAESI Act) were rendered invalid. Advocate Mathews Nedumpara, representing the MSMEs, argued that no committee had been formed as per the notification, and therefore, no recovery proceedings could be rightfully initiated.
 
Advocate Advait Sethna, representing the central government, argued that the notification merely provided an option for MSMEs to initiate restructuring proceedings. He asserted that such a procedure should not impose restrictions on the recovery proceedings authorized under the SARFAESI Act.
 
In its final ruling, the High Court dismissed the petition, underscoring that the MSMEs were required to formally submit an application to the banks or NBFCs to initiate the process outlined in the 2015 notification. As no such application was filed by the MSMEs in this instance, the Court rejected their challenge to the actions taken by the banks and NBFCs. While granting liberty to the banks and NBFCs to proceed with the SARFAESI proceedings, the Court imposed a stay on the order for a two-week period, affording the MSMEs an opportunity to file an appeal if they chose to do so.
 
 
 
 
Share this News

Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy