Allahabad Bank, Industrial Finance Branch (IFB), Cheema Chowk, Ludhiana and another Respondents *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Present : Mr. Aalok Jagga, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.P.S. Dhillon, Advocate for respondents. *** AVNEESH JHINGAN, J. The petitioner is a partnership firm and the writ petition has been filed through one of its partner. The grievance raised in the writ petition is that the respondent No.1Bank i.e. Allahabad Bank, Cheema Chowk, Ludhiana has not referred the proposals dated 22.05.2017 (Annexure P8) for restructuring of loan account to the Committee constituted in terms of Clause 3.3 of the "Framework for Revival and Rehabilitation of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) (hereinafter referred to as 'the designated Committee'). 2. Allahabad Bank, Cheema Chowk, Ludhiana and Chairman 1 of 7 ::: Downloaded on 07102018 09:29:11 ::: CWP No. 22963 of 2017 ~2~ of the designated Committee have been arrayed as respondent Nos.1 and 2, respectively. 3. The petitioner set up a partnership firm for the purpose of manufacturing and trading of yarn, knitted cloth and hosiery goods. The petitioner falls in the category of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (for brevity 'MSMEs'). The petitioner availed the various credit facilities from respondent No.1 :~ Cash credit (including ILC/FLC) 8,00,00,000/ Bank Guarantee 30,00,000/ Term LoanI 2,15,00,000/ Term LoanII 7,46,00,000/ Term LoanIII 40,00,000/ The said credit facilities were secured by mortgaging the factory, machinery, fixed assets and other current assets. 4. During the end of year 2006, the petitioner unit faced financial difficulties and cash credit limit was marginally overdrawn. There were early signs of incipient stress in the unit. Vide letter dated 14.03.2017 the petitioner requested the bank for restructuring of the credit facilities. 5. Reserve Bank of India, on 17.03.2016, issued Framework for Revival and Rehabilitation of MSMEs having loan limit upto `25 crores. Thereafter, petitioner gave a number of reminders to the respondentbank for placing the matter before the Designated Committee. Communications dated 31.05.2017 and 08.06.2017 were directly written to the Chairman of Designated Committee for consideration of restructuring of credit facilities of the petitioner. 6. The matter was not put up before the Designated 2 of 7 ::: Downloaded on 07102018 09:29:12 ::: CWP No. 22963 of 2017 ~3~ Committee rather respondentbank wrote letter dated 13.07.2017 stating that the petitioner firm has maintained current account with Union Bank of India and has diverted bank funds. Petitioner was informed that there were overdues of `2.7 crores against the sanctioned limit of `18.31 crores and if the overdues were not deposited, the account may go into the NonPerforming Asset (N.P.A.) category. 7. Notice of motion was issued. Reply was filed by respondent no.1 annexing R1 dated 13.10.2017 vide which Bank rejected the request of petitioner for restructuring the accounts. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the request has been rejected by the bank without affording an opportunity of hearing. Further grievance is that the request for restructuring/ rehabilitiation should have been put up before the Designated Committee and bank cannot reject the same. 9. Learned counsel for the bank resisted the contentions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He relied upon Annexure R1 stating that petitioner was requested six times vide various letters