Anil K. Narendran, J.

1. The appellants are the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.42521 of 2025. The 1st appellant, namely, Immaculate Agro Spices Pvt. Ltd., is a company engaged in the trading of agricultural produce (spices), having Ext.P1 Udyam registration certificate dated 03.10.2020 issued by the 14th respondent Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises. The 2nd appellant is the Managing Director, and the 3rd appellant is the Director of the 1st appellant company. The appellants-petitioners filed W.P.(C)No.42521 of 2025 before this Court on 12.11.2025, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs;

                  “a) To declare that the notification dated 29.05.2015, in unmistakable terms, declares that the MSME-borrower has no obligation to make an application for resolution of stress and, on the contrary, that banks and financial institutions are duty-bound to identify incipient stress based on the illustrative signs indicated in Annexure-I to the RBI Circular dated 17.03.2016; and further, that in any case where the bank has failed to identify incipient stress, it is duty-bound to classify the account as SMA-1 if the default is more than 31 days and as SMA-2 if the default is more than 61 days, and thereafter shall constitute a Committee and make a reference to that Committee for resolution of stress; and further, that the Committee is empowered to permit recovery in terms of Para 5(3)(iv) if the resolution of stress is not feasible; and

                  b) In furtherance of prayer (a) above, to declare that the judgments of the Supreme Court in Pro Knits v. Canara Bank and others [(2024) 10 SCC 292] and Shree Shree Swami Samarth Construction and another v. The Board of Directors of NKGSB Co-op Bank & others [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1566] were rendered per incuriam and sub silentio and will not bind the courts and tribunals in this country under Article 141 of the Constitution, inasmuch as - (i) in Pro Knits, the Court had, contrary to the letter and spirit of the notification, observed that if the MSME had allowed its account to be classified as NPA and for recovery action to be initiated, having failed to bring to the notice of the bank that it is an MSME supported by identifiable and verifiable documents, it cannot be allowed to “thwart” the SARFAESI action at a later stage; and (ii) in Shree Shree Swami Samarth, the Court observed that if the MSME had not even replied to the notice under Section 13(2) and claimed protection as an MSME supported by an affidavit, the recovery action cannot thereafter be challenged - which, to repeat, are contrary to the very letter as well as the spirit of the notification and have created a scenario where the said judgments have been instrumental in denying the benefit of the notification to MSMEs across the country.

                  c) To declare that the entire proceedings initiated by the respondent against the petitioners under Sections 13(2), 13(4) and 14 of the SARFAESI Act, are unconstitutional, illegal and void, being in violation of Paragraph 5(4)(iii) of the notification dated 29.05.2015 under the MSMED Act and without jurisdiction for more than one reason;

                  d) to declare that the loss and injuries suffered by the petitioners being far in excess of the claim of the Bank as against the petitioners, the petitioners are entitled to compensation and damages which they are entitled to seek in the very same proceedings the Bank has instituted against them;

                  e) to declare that insofar as the MSMED Act and the notification dated 29.05.2015 creates certain obligations and burden as against the Bank and certain rights and protection in favour of the MSME borrower in furtherance of larger public interest, and has not provided for any forum for the enforcement of the said inter se rights/adjudication of disputes, the Civil Court jurisdiction is not ousted;

                  f) to issue a permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining and prohibiting the Respondent-Bank, and its Authorized officer, from proceeding any further under Section 13(2), 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002;

                  g) Declare that the circular dated 17.03.2016 restricting, nay completely taking away, the benefit of the notification dated 29.05.2015 from MSMEs whose credit limit exceeds Rs.25 crores, is illegal, ultra vires the MSMED Act/ notification and void to that extent that it takes away such right;

                  h) To declare that the circulars dated 17.03.2016, 26.06.2020, and 04.06.2021 are liable to be read together, and that by virtue of the circular dated 04.06.2021, the cap of Rs.25 crores imposed by the RBI stands altered and amended;

                  i) to declare that the respondent Bank is not entitled to any of the remedies which it seeks to enforce in terms of the notice under Sections 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 so also under Section 14 of the said Act inasmuch as it is not the petitioners who are guilty of any breach of contract and who are under any obligation in terms of the contract between him and the Respondent-Bank, but the latter, namely the Respondent- Bank and its officers who are guilty of gross breach of contract, culpable negligence, customer unfriendly attitude and malicious and tortious actions, and thereby have caused damage and loss to the petitioners far in excess of the very claim of the Respondent-Bank and, to put it succinctly, to grant in favour of the petitioners a negative declaration that no amount is due from the petitioners to the Respondent-Bank;

                  j) to issue a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining and prohibiting the Respondent-bank from proceeding any further in furtherance of the action initiated under Section 13, 13(2), 13(4) and 14 of the SARFAESI Act, Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act or under any other law or in any manner whatsoever to interfere with the absolute estate, right, title, possession and enjoyment of the properties of Petitioners which the Respondents falsely claimed to be secured at their hands;

                  k) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the entire records and proceedings leading to the classification of the petitioners’ account as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA), the issuance of notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4), and the order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 as well as the records pertaining to the purported auctions conducted by the respondent Bank.

                  l) to declare that while the respondent Bank is entitled to enforce all remedies available in law as against the petitioner, common law, equitable or declaratory, it can only have one forum, and that it having instituted a suit in the DRT, the SARFAESI action is without jurisdiction and void;

                  m) pass such further and other orders as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.”

2. The interim relief sought for in W.P.(C)No.42521 of 2025 is an ad-interim injunction restraining and prohibiting the respondent Bank, its agents, and servants from proceeding any further in pursuance of the actions initiated under the SARFAESI Act, the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act), or any other law in force, and in particular, from acting upon Ext.P24 notice dated 04.11.2025 issued by the Advocate Commissioner to take physical possession of the properties.

3. On 14.11.2025, when W.P.(C)No.42521 of 2025 came up for admission, respondents 1 and 2 entered appearance through counsel. The 6th respondent also entered appearance through counsel. Notice was ordered to other respondents, who have not yet been served with a copy of the writ petition, except respondents 17, 23, 24, 25 and 26. By way of an interim order dated 14.11.2025, the learned Single Judge ordered that the taking of physical possession pursuant to Ext.P24 notice dated 04.11.2025 of the Advocate Commissioner shall stand deferred for a period of two weeks. On 28.11.2025, the interim order was extended by two weeks, and the writ petition was ordered to be listed on 04.12.2025, along with connected matters.

4. In W.P.(C)No.42521 of 2025, the 8th respondent - Authorised Officer has filed a counter affidavit dated 03.12.2025, on behalf of the 7th respondent - Board of Directors of Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd., opposing the reliefs sought for. In the counter affidavit, a preliminary objection on the maintainability of W.P.(C)No.42521 of 2025 is raised, wherein it is stated that Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. is a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC), registered under Section 45-IA of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, and not a Scheduled Commercial Bank. In the counter affidavit, it is contended, inter alia, that the Framework for Revival and Rehabilitation of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, which was notified by the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, Government of India, vide Ext.P10 notification No.S.O.1432(E) dated 29.05.2015, and Ext.P11 circular FIDD.MSME & NFS.BC.No.21/06.02.31/2015-16 dated 17.03.2016 issued by the 15th respondent - Reserve Bank of India, enclosing therewith the Framework for Revival and Rehabilitation of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, notified by the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises vide Ext.P10 notification dated 29.05.2015, applies only to Scheduled Commercial Banks. Ext.R8(a) - Second Schedule to the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, would show that Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. does not fall within the category of a Scheduled Bank.

5. On 24.12.2025, along with I.A.No.2 of 2025 filed in W.P.(C)No.42521 of 2025, respondents 7 and 8 produced Ext.R8(b) - reply FIDD.CO.RIA. No.S1632/ 01.10.068/ 2025-26 dated 23.12.2025 issued by the Central Public Information Officer of the Reserve Bank of India, regarding the Framework for Revival and Rehabilitation of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises issued by the Reserve Bank of India, issued vide Ext.P11 circular FIDD. MSME & NFS.BC.No.21/06.02.31/2015-16 dated 17.03.2016. In the Annexure to Ext.R8(b) reply dated 23.12.2025, it is stated that the framework issued under circular FIDD.MSME & NFS.BC. No.21/06.02.31/2015-16 dated 17.03.2016, on ‘Framework for Revival and Rehabilitation of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs)’ is not applicable to Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs).

6. On 17.12.2025, the interim order granted in W.P.(C)No. 42521 of 2025 was revived and extended till 16.01.2026, and thereafter, on 16.01.2026, the interim order was extended till 21.01.2026.

7. On 21.01.2026, when W.P.(C)No.42521 of 2025 came up for consideration, the learned counsel for respondents 7 and 8 submitted that the said respondents had already filed a counter affidavit raising the question of maintainability of the writ petition. Since the interim order originally granted on 14.11.2025 was unconditional, and more than Rs.3,50,00,000/- crores is due to the respondents 7 and 8, the learned Single Judge, by the impugned order dated 21.01.2026, modified the interim order originally granted on 14.11.2025, and extended the same by two weeks from 21.01.2026, on condition that the petitioners shall remit Rs.1,00,00,000/- on or before 30.01.2026. In the order dated 21.01.2026, the learned Single Judge made it clear that, if the said amount is not remitted, respondents 7 and 8 are free to take physical possession of the secured assets, in accordance with law. The impugned order dated 21.01.2026 of the learned Single Judge reads thus;

                  “The writ petition is filed for a declaration that the notification dated 29.05.2015 declares that MSME borrower has no obligation to make an application for resolution of stress and, on the contrary, banks and financial institutions are duty-bound to identify incipient stress and also to declare that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court in Pro Knits v. Canara Bank and others [(2024) 10 SCC 292] and Shree Shree Swami Samarth Construction and another v. The Board of Directors of NKGSB Co- op. Bank and others [(2025 KHC Online 6647)] were rendered per incuriam and sub silentio and will not bind the courts and tribunals in this country under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Along with these two prayers, various other prayers are also sought to quash all the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act.

                  2. Ext.P23 is a notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act to the petitioners. The total amount due as on 16.05.2025 is ₹3,50,19,621.90. Taking forward the proceedings, the respondent bank [sic: respondents 7 and 8] approached the CJM, Thrissur, by filing C.M.P.No.10897 of 2025, wherein an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to take physical possession of the secured assets, and he has issued Ext.P24 notice to take physical possession of the secured assets measuring 30.37 Ares in Sy.No.571/4-10 of Muringoor Thekkummuri Village, Chalakkudy Taluk, obtained as per Sale Deed No.2660 of 2023 of Chalakkudy SRO, belonging to the 2nd petitioner. On 14.11.2025, while issuing notice to the respondents, taking of physical possession pursuant to Ext.P24 was deferred for a period of 2 weeks without any condition. Thereafter, the order was extended on 28.11.2025 by two weeks. On 17.12.2025, the interim order was revived and extended till next posting and posted to 16.01.2026.

                  3. Counsel for the 7th respondent, on behalf of the 8th respondent, submits that they have already filed a counter affidavit raising the question of maintainability of the writ petition. Since the 1st interim order dated 14.11.2025 was an unconditional order, and more than ₹3.50 crores is due to the respondent bank [sic: respondents 7 and 8], the interim order granted on 14.11.2025 is modified and extended by two weeks from today, on condition that the petitioners remit Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one crores only) on or before 30.01.2026. If the said amount is not remitted, the respondent bank [sic: respondents 7 and 8] is free to take physical possession of the secured assets, in accordance with law.”

8. The appellants-petitioners have filed this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the interim order dated 21.01.2026 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.42521 of 2025.

9. On 16.02.2026, when this writ appeal came up for admission, an adjournment was sought on the ground that the learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners is unable to argue the matter due to connectivity issues. On 17.02.2026, the learned counsel for the appellants again sought an adjournment. Thereafter, at the instance of the learned counsel for the appellants, the matter was adjourned on 23.02.2026, 02.03.2026, and 17.03.2026. During the pendency of this writ appeal, the appellants filed SLP(C)No.6379 of 2026 before the Apex Court, challenging the interim order dated 21.01.2026 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.42521 of 2025, invoking the provisions under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, which was dismissed by the order dated 13.02.2026. The said order reads thus;

                  “We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned interim order passed by the High Court; hence, the special leave petition is dismissed.

                  Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

10. On 27.03.2026, when this writ appeal came up for consideration, we heard arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners and the learned counsel for respondents 6 and 7, and the matter was reserved for judgment.

11. The learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner argued that the judgments of the Apex Court in Pro Knits [(2024) 10 SCC 292] and Shree Shree Swami Samarth Construction [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1566] were rendered per incuriam and sub silentio and will not bind the courts and tribunals in the country under Article 141 of the Constitution. In Pro Knits [(2024) 10 SCC 292] the Apex Court had, contrary to the letter and spirit of Ext.P10 notification dated 29.05.2015, observed that if the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise (MSME) had allowed its account to be classified as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) and for recovery action to be initiated, having failed to bring to the notice of the bank that it is an MSME supported by identifiable and verifiable documents, it cannot be allowed to thwart the SARFAESI action at a later stage; similarly, in Shree Shree Swami Samarth [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1566], the Apex Court had, contrary to the letter and spirit of Ext.P10 notification dated 29.05.2015, observed that if the MSME had not even replied to the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and claimed protection as an MSME supported by an affidavit, the recovery action cannot thereafter be challenged. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel referred to various provisions under the Framework for Revival and Rehabilitation of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, notified vide Ext.P10 notification dated 29.05.2015 and Ext.P11 Reserve Bank of India circular dated 17.03.2016. The contentions raised by the petitioners in that regard were not properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order dated 21.01.2026 in W.P.(C)No.42521 of 2025. The learned Single Judge failed to notice that the law laid down in the judgments referred to supra has no application to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand. Placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [(2000) 6 SCC 359], the learned counsel contended that, since the dismissal of SLP(C)No.6379 of 2026 by the Apex Court, by the order dated 13.02.2026, is by a non-speaking order, which does not assign reasons for dismissing the special leave petition, it would neither attract the doctrine of merger so as to stand substituted in place of the order put in issue before it nor would it be a declaration of law by the Apex Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, for there is no law which has been declared.

12. The learned counsel for respondents 7 and 8 contended that in the counter affidavit dated 03.12.2025 filed in W.P.(C)No.42521 of 2025, the said respondents have raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the said writ petition. Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. is a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC), registered under Section 45-IA of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, which is not a Scheduled Commercial Bank. The Framework for Revival and Rehabilitation of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, which was notified by the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, Government of India, vide Ext.P10 notification and Ext.P11 circular dated 17.03.2016, applies only to Scheduled Commercial Banks. In the Annexure to Ext.R8(b) reply dated 23.12.2025, produced along with I.A.No.2 of 2025 filed in W.P.(C)No.42521 of 2025, it is stated that the framework issued under Ext.P11 circular dated 17.03.2016 does not apply to Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs). The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners are absolutely untenable, and no interference is warranted on the interim order dated 21.01.2026 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.42521 of 2025.

13. On the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner that the judgments of the Apex Court in Pro Knits [(2024) 10 SCC 292] and Shree Shree Swami Samarth Construction [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1566] were rendered per incuriam and sub silentio and will not bind the courts and tribunals in the country under Article 141 of the Constitution, we notice the order of the Apex Court dated 23.02.2026 in SLP(C)No.7581 of 2026 - M/s.Kan Agro Spices and others v. The Board of Directors of RBL Bank Ltd. and others - which was one filed by the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.42585 of 2025, invoking the provisions under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, challenging the interim order dated 21.01.2026 of the learned Single Judge in I.A.No.3 of 2026 in W.P.(C)No.42585 of 2025.

14. SLP(C)No.7581 of 2026 was filed before the Apex Court during the pendency of W.A.No.400 of 2026 filed by the petitioners therein before this Court, invoking the provisions under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the very same interim order of the learned Single Judge dated 21.01.2026. The said writ appeal, i.e., W.A.No.400 of 2026, was listed before this Court, along with the present writ appeal, i.e., W.A.No.395 of 2026, on 16.02.2026, 17.02.2026, 23.02.2026, 02.03.2026, 17.03.2026 and 26.03.2026.

15. SLP(C)No.7581 of 2026 was dismissed by the order of the Apex Court dated 23.02.2026. In the said order, the Apex Court found that prayers (a) and (b) sought for in W.P.(C)No.42585 of 2025 are such that the same, if granted, would be an act of gravest impropriety. By the said order, the Apex Court dismissed W.P.(C)No.42585 of 2025, which was pending before this Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Taking note of the order dated 23.02.2026 of the Apex Court in SLP(C)No.7581 of 2026, the learned Single Judge, by the judgment dated 04.03.2026, dismissed W.P.(C)No.42585 of 2025. Therefore, by the judgment dated 26.03.2026 - M/s.Kan Agro Spices and others v. The Board of Directors of RBL Bank Ltd. and others [2026:KER: 27057] - this Court dismissed W.A.No.400 of 2026. Paragraphs 4 to 8 and also the last paragraph of the judgment dated 26.03.2026 in W.A.No.400 of 2026 read thus;

                  “4. Today, when this writ appeal is taken up for consideration, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners that SLP(C)No.7581 of 2026 filed by the appellants herein challenging the interim order dated 21.01.2026 of the learned Single Judge in I.A.No.3 of 2026 in W.P.(C)No.42585 of 2025 (the order impugned in this writ appeal), ended in dismissal by the order dated 23.02.2026 of the Apex Court.

                  5. As already noticed hereinbefore, the prayers (a) and (b) sought for in W.P.(C)No.42585 of 2025 is (a) a declaration that the notification dated 29.05.2015, in unmistakable terms, declares that the MSME-borrower has no obligation to make an application for resolution of stress and, on the contrary, that banks and financial institutions are duty- bound to identify incipient stress based on the illustrative signs indicated in Annexure-I to the RBI Circular dated 17.03.2016; and further, that in any case where the bank has failed to identify incipient stress, it is duty-bound to classify the account as SMA-1 if the default is more than 31 days and as SMA-2 if the default is more than 61 days, and thereafter shall constitute a Committee and make a reference to that Committee for resolution of stress; and further, that the Committee is empowered to permit recovery in terms of Para 5(3)(iv) if the resolution of stress is not feasible; and (b) a declaration that the judgments of the Supreme Court in Pro Knits v. Canara Bank [(2024) 10 SCC 292] and Shree Shree Swami Samarth Construction v. The Board of Directors of NKGSB Co- op Bank [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1566] were rendered per incuriam and sub silentio and will not bind the courts and tribunals in this country under Article 141 of the Constitution, inasmuch as - (i) in Pro Knits [(2024) 10 SCC 292], the Court had, contrary to the letter and spirit of the notification, observed that if the MSME had allowed its account to be classified as NPA and for recovery action to be initiated, having failed to bring to the notice of the bank that it is an MSME supported by identifiable and verifiable documents, it cannot be allowed to “thwart” the SARFAESI action at a later stage; and (ii) in Shree Shree Swami Samarth Construction [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1566], the Court observed that if the MSME had not even replied to the notice under Section 13(2) and claimed protection as an MSME supported by an affidavit, the recovery action cannot thereafter be challenged - which, to repeat, are contrary to the very letter as well as the spirit of the notification and have created a scenario where the said judgments have been instrumental in denying the benefit of the notification to MSMEs across the country.

                  6. In the order dated 23.02.2026 in SLP(C)No.7581 of 2026, the Apex Court found that prayers (a) and (b) sought for in W.P.(C)No.42585 of 2025 are such that the same, if granted, would be an act of gravest impropriety. The law declared by the Apex Court, right or wrong, is binding on all courts across the country. Although no authority is required to be cited, in the order dated 23.02.2026, the Apex Court referred to the decisions, inter alia, in Suganthi Suresh Kumar v. Jagdeeshan [(2002) 2 SCC 420], Director of Settlements v. M.R. Apparao [(2002) 4 SCC 638] and South Central Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society Employees Union v. B. Yashodabai [(2015) 2 SCC 727]. Having regard to the frame of the said writ petition, the Apex Court found that the same is not maintainable. Since the petitioners do not also wish to amend the writ petition, the Apex Court deemed it proper to exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and accordingly W.P.(C)No.42585 of 2025 pending before this Court was dismissed, by the order dated 23.02.2026. The said order of the Apex Court in SLP(C)No.7581 of 2026 reads thus;

                  “1. This special leave petition is directed against an interim order passed by the High Court of Kerala in a pending writ petition.

                  2. Prayers (a) and (b) of the writ petition filed by the petitioners before the High Court are such that the same, if granted, would be an act of gravest impropriety. The law declared by this Court, right or wrong, is binding on all courts across the country. Although no authority is required to be cited, we may refer to the decisions of this Court, inter alia, in Suganthi Suresh Kumar v. Jagdeeshan [(2002) 2 SCC 420], Director of Settlements v. M.R. Apparao [(2002) 4 SCC 638] and South Central Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society Employees Union v. B. Yashodabai and others [(2015) 2 SCC 727].

                  3. The writ petition is not maintainable in the manner it has been presented before the High Court; hence, there is no question of entertaining the special leave petition. The same is dismissed.

                  4. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

                  5. We had granted opportunity to Mr. Nedumpara, learned counsel for the petitioners, to go back to the High Court and seek amendment of the writ petition. He does not seem to be agreeable unless we interfere with the interim order under challenge and modify the quantum of deposit directed to be made by the High Court.

                  6. Having regard to the frame of the writ petition, the same is not maintainable; and since the petitioners do not also wish to amend the same, we deem it proper to exercise our power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition pending on the file of the High Court also stands dismissed.

                  7. This order be communicated to the High Court.”

                  (underline supplied)

                  7. Taking note of the order dated 23.02.2026 of the Apex Court in SLP(C)No.7581 of 2026, the learned Single Judge, by the judgment dated 04.03.2026, dismissed W.P.(C)No. 42585 of 2025. The last paragraph of that judgment reads thus;

                  “The Hon’ble Apex Court exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India has dismissed the writ petition (civil) pending before this Court. In view of the said order passed by the Apex Court, this writ petition stands dismissed.”

                  8. In view of the aforesaid order dated 23.02.2026 of the Apex Court in SLP(C)No.7581 of 2026 and the judgment dated 04.03.2026 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.42585 of 2025, nothing survives in this writ appeal, since W.P.(C)No.42585 of 2025 stands dismissed by the orders of the Apex Court in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

                  In such circumstances, this writ appeal fails, and the same is accordingly dismissed.”

16. In the case at hand, the declaratory reliefs (a) and (b) sought for in W.P.(C)No.42521 of 2025, which we have extracted hereinbefore at the first paragraph (pages 5 and 6), are the very same reliefs sought for in W.P.(C)No.42585 of 2025 as declaratory reliefs (a) and (b), which we have extracted in paragraph 5 of the judgment dated 26.03.2026 in W.A.No.400 of 2026 (quoted hereinbefore at paragraph 15, page Nos.20-22). While dismissing SLP(C)No.7581 of 2026 filed challenging the interim order dated 21.01.2026 of the learned Single Judge in I.A.No.3 of 2026 in W.P.(C)No.42585 of 2025, the Apex Court found that prayers (a) and (b) sought for in W.P.(C)No.42585 of 2025 are such that the same, if granted, would be an act of gravest impropriety. In the said order it was made clear that the law declared by the Apex Court, right or wrong, is binding on all courts across the country. In the order dated 23.02.2026, the Apex Court referred to the decisions in Suganthi Suresh Kumar [(2002) 2 SCC 420], M.R. Apparao [(2002) 4 SCC 638] and B. Yashodabai [(2015) 2 SCC 727]. In the above circumstances, we find absolutely no merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners that the judgments of the Apex Court in Pro Knits [(2024) 10 SCC 292] and Shree Shree Swami Samarth Construction [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1566] were rendered per incuriam and sub silentio and will not bind the courts and tribunals in the country under Article 141 of the Constitution.

17. As already noticed hereinbefore, in the counter affidavit dated 03.12.2025 filed in W.P.(C)No.42521 of 2025, respondents 7 and 8 have raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the said writ petition. It is not in dispute that Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. is a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC), registered under Section 45-IA of the Reserve Bank of India Act, which is not a Scheduled Commercial Bank. The said fact is evident from Ext.R8(a) Second Schedule to the Reserve Bank of India Act. The specific stand taken in the counter affidavit dated 03.12.2025 filed by respondents 7 and 8 in W.P.(C)No.42521 of 2025 is that the Framework for Revival and Rehabilitation of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, which was notified by the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, Government of India, vide Ext.P10 notification and Ext.P11 Reserve Bank of India circular dated 17.03.2016, applies only to Scheduled Commercial Banks. In support of the said contention, respondents 7 and 8 have produced Ext.R8(b) reply dated 23.12.2025 issued by the Central Public Information Officer of the Reserve Bank of India, along with I.A.No.2 of 2025 filed in W.P.(C)No.42521 of 2025, wherein it is stated that the framework issued under Ext.P11 circular dated 17.03.2016 is not applicable to Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs). The contentions raised in the counter affidavit dated 03.12.2025 filed by respondents 7 and 8 on the maintainability of the writ petition and also the applicability of the framework issued under Ext.P11 circular dated 17.03.2016 in the case of an NBFC is yet to be considered by the learned Single Judge. In the above circumstances, we find that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners with reference to various provisions under the Framework for Revival and Rehabilitation of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, notified vide Ext.P10 notification dated 29.05.2015 and that contained in Ext.P11 Reserve Bank of India circular dated 17.03.2016, and also the contention raised by the learned counsel for respondents 7 and 8 on the applicability of the said framework in the case of an NBFC are matters which have to be raised before the learned Single Judge in the pending writ petition.

18. In view of the aforesaid findings at paragraphs 16 and 17, it is unnecessary for this Court to consider the effect of the dismissal of SLP(C)No.6379 of 2026 by the order of the Apex Court dated 13.02.2026, which ended in dismissal during the pendency of this writ appeal.

                  In the above circumstances, we find absolutely no merit in this writ appeal. The writ appeal fails, and the same is accordingly dismissed.