Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) M/S. Untag Fashions Private Limited & ... vs Uco Bank & Ors on 25 July, 2025 2025:CHCAS:1397DB CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon'ble Justice Debangsu Basak And The Hon'ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi M.A.T. 987 of 2025 M/s. Untag Fashions Private Limited & Ors. vs. UCO Bank & Ors. With CAN 1 of 2025 CAN 2 of 2025 For the Appellants : Mr. Arindam Banerjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Pratip Mukherjee Mr. Emon Bhattacharya Ms. Pooja Sah For the Union of India : Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Sr. Adv., Mr. Pradip Kumar Kundu For the Respondent Nos. 1 &2 : Ms. Aparajita Rao Ms. Nabanita Dutta For the Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Aman Agarwal Mr. Debabrata Das Mr. A. Sarkar Mr. Pratik Acharjee Heard & Judgment on : July 25, 2025 2 2025:CHCAS:1397DB DEBANGSU BASAK, J.: 1. CAN 1 of 2025 is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 89 days in making and filing of the appeal. 2. Respondents are represented. 3. Considering the averments made in the application for condonation of delay and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay in making and filing the appeal. Delay in making and filing the appeal is condoned. 4. CAN 1 of 2025 is allowed. 5. By consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing. 6. Supplementary affidavit filed in Court be taken on record. 7. Appeal is at the behest of the writ petitioners and directed against an order dated February 28, 2025. 8. By the impugned order, learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition of the appellants. 9. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the appellant no. 1 is a Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise (MSME) within 3 2025:CHCAS:1397DB the meaning of The Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, 2006. He submits that, there are guidelines/circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India governing MSME. He submits that, such circulars/guidelines are binding of the Banks in view of Sections 21 and 35A of the Banking Regulation Act. He relies upon 2024 INSC 565 (M/s. Pro Knits vs. The Board of Directors of Canara Bank & Ors.) in support of his contentions. 10. Learned Senior advocate appearing for the appellants draws the attention of the Court to the supplementary affidavit and to a letter dated August 26, 2019. He submits that, a proposal for rehabilitation was submitted to the bank for restructuring in terms of the guidelines issued by the RBI. He submits that the Debts Recovery Tribunal is not the appropriate forum to undertake a restructuring programme. The appellants and the Bank are governed by the guidelines of the RBI. An opportunity should be afforded to the appellants for restructuring. 11. Learned advocate appearing for the bank draws the attention of the Court to the contents of the letters relied on by the appellants. He submits that the first letter dated April 19, 2022 was addressed to the RBI and not to the bank. The supplementary affidavit contains a letter dated August 26, 2019 which speaks of a proposal to be submitted. Bank wrote at least three 4 2025:CHCAS:1397DB letters dated September 20, 2019, November 5, 2019 and December 16, 2019 calling upon the appellants to submit proposal which never came. 12. Learned advocate appearing for the bank draws the attention of the Court to the paragraph 17 of M/s. Pro Knits (supra). She submits that a recall notice was issued on August 1, 2018. Notice under Section 13 (2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002 was issued on December 13, 2018. Measures under Section 13 (4) of the Act of 2002 were taken. Thereafter, the ap