SUNITHA ROY Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a joint writ petition by four Cashew Processing Units praying for following reliefs:

(2.) It is thus clear that petitioners are in fact impugning demand notices issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'SARFAESI Act', for short) to petitioner Nos.1 to 3 directing them to repay to the secured creditor the outstanding amount of loan within the prescribed statutory period.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for petitioners. By taking me through exhibits annexed to the writ petition, learned counsel for petitioners argued that as Cashew Processing Units in the State were in crisis and at the verge of closure, 2nd respondent-State of Kerala constituted a Cashew Revival Committee. On the basis of its recommendation, a Revival Scheme for Cashew Processing Industries came to be formulated as per the decision taken by the Government of Kerala as well as the State Level Bankers Committee. Cashew Processing Units prima facie found liable for revival were referred to concerned Banks for taking up restructuring process.