Summary of the Judgment
Case Name: M/S. Pro Knits v. The Board of Directors of Canara Bank & Ors.
Date: 1st August 2024
Judges: Hon'ble Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Hon'ble Justice R. Mahadevan
Advocates: Mr. Mathews Nedumpara for the appellants
Acts and Sections: Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act), Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), Banking Regulation Act, 1949
Introduction
The Supreme Court of India's judgment in the case of M/S. Pro Knits v. The Board of Directors of Canara Bank & Ors. addresses pivotal issues surrounding the statutory protections afforded to Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act). This case, presided over by Hon'ble Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Hon'ble Justice R. Mahadevan, delves into the compliance requirements of banks and Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs) concerning the framework for identifying and restructuring stressed MSME accounts before classifying them as Non-Performing Assets (NPAs). The judgment sets a significant precedent in determining the mandatory nature of the MSME framework vis-à-vis the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act).
The appellants, represented by Mr. Mathews Nedumpara, contended that the banks failed to adhere to the restructuring process outlined in the Notification dated 29th May 2015, thereby rendering subsequent actions under the SARFAESI Act illegal. The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the High Court correctly interpreted the provisions, emphasizing that the SARFAESI Act's overriding effect nullified the mandatory application of the MSME framework. This article provides an in-depth analysis of the Supreme Court's judgment, highlighting its implications for MSMEs, financial institutions, and the broader legal landscape.
Background of the Case
The appellants, comprising various MSMEs, challenged the High Court of Judicature at Bombay’s order dated 11th January 2024, which dismissed their writ petitions. The primary contention was the non-adherence of the respondent banks to the restructuring process outlined in the Notification dated 29th May 2015, prior to classifying their loan accounts as Non-Performing Assets (NPAs).
Key Issues Addressed
Mandatory Nature of MSME Notification: The crux of the appeals rested on whether the Notification dated 29th May 2015, under Section 9 of the MSMED Act, was mandatory for the banks to follow before classifying MSME accounts as NPAs.
Conflict with SARFAESI Act: The appeals also questioned the extent to which the SARFAESI Act, specifically Section 35 which gives it overriding powers, would affect the applicability of the MSME Notification.
Judgement Analysis
Mandatory Compliance with MSME Notification
The Supreme Court underscored that the instructions for the "Framework for Revival and Rehabilitation of MSMEs" as issued under the MSMED Act, are indeed mandatory. The Notification required banks to identify incipient stress in MSME accounts by categorizing them under Special Mention Account (SMA) sub-categories before declaring them as NPAs. The purpose of this framework is to facilitate the development and competitiveness of MSMEs.
Interplay with SARFAESI Act
While the SARFAESI Act provides robust mechanisms for the enforcement of security interests by secured creditors, the Supreme Court clarified that the MSME framework must be followed prior to initiating actions under the SARFAESI Act. This implies that the procedures for stress recognition and restructuring under the MSME Notification must precede the classification of accounts as NPAs and any subsequent recovery actions under the SARFAESI Act.
Interplay with the Banking Regulation Act
The judgment further elaborates on the interplay between the MSME framework and the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Section 21 of the Banking Regulation Act empowers the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to control advances by banking companies, ensuring compliance with its directions. The RBI's Master Directions, called the “Reserve Bank of India [Lending to Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) Sector] Directions, 2016,” issued under Sections 21 and 35A, were highlighted as binding on all scheduled commercial banks.
“Section 21 read with Section 35A makes it clear that the directions issued by the Reserve Bank of India to the Banking companies are binding on them and they are bound to comply with such directions.”
Requirements for MSMEs
The Supreme Court also stressed the obligations of MSMEs to substantiate their claims for restructuring benefits. The framework necessitates MSMEs to produce authenticated and verifiable documents to demonstrate their eligibility.
“The stage of identification of incipient stress in the loan account of MSMEs and categorization under the Special Mention Account category, before the loan account of MSME turns into NPA is a very crucial stage.”
Implications
For MSMEs: This judgment reinforces the protections available to MSMEs under the MSMED Act, ensuring that banks must follow a structured process before classifying their accounts as NPAs. Legal professionals representing MSMEs must ensure that these entities are aware of their rights and the procedural safeguards provided under the MSME framework.
For Banks and Financial Institutions: Banks and NBFCs must meticulously follow the MSME framework for stress identification and restructuring. Non-compliance could render subsequent actions under the SARFAESI Act as invalid. Legal advisors for financial institutions need to emphasize strict adherence to these procedural requirements to avoid potential litigations.
For the Judiciary: The judgment sets a precedent emphasizing the hierarchical application of the MSMED Act over the SARFAESI Act in the context of MSMEs. Future cases involving MSMEs will likely refer to this judgment to determine the procedural propriety of actions taken by financial institutions.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's judgment in favour of the appellants—various MSMEs—highlights the mandatory nature of the MSME framework for the identification and resolution of financial stress before invoking the SARFAESI Act. This decision not only fortifies the regulatory structure intended to support MSMEs but also delineates the procedural boundaries for financial institutions. Legal professionals must navigate these frameworks meticulously to safeguard the interests of their clients, be it MSMEs or financial institutions.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that statutory protections for MSMEs are robustly enforced, aligning with the broader objectives of economic development and competitiveness as envisaged under the MSMED Act.
Comments