JESIMA BANU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only issue raised by the petitioner has been covered in several orders of this Court. The petitioner contends that the third respondent, REPCO Home Finance Limited, is not entitled to invoke the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the measures taken by the third respondent under the provisions of the said Act of 2002. The petitioner says that since the third respondent is not a secured creditor within the meaning of the definition in the relevant statute, the entire action taken by the third respondent is without jurisdiction. The petitioner says that in such circumstances, this extraordinary jurisdiction has been invoked in preference to the usual remedy available under Section 17 of the Act. In support of the petitioner's contention, the petitioner refers to a judgment of this Court rendered on March 3, 2021 pertaining to REPCO Bank. The petitioner says that since REPCO Bank is the holding entity of REPCO Home Finance Limited, the same rule as applicable to REPCO Bank would, ipso facto, apply to REPCO Home Finance Limited.

(3.) The contention is flawed and exceptionable. It has been noticed in several previous judgments that by a notification dated November 10, 2003, the REPCO Home Finance Limited has been recognised as a financial institution by the Central Government. In at least one of the matters dealt with by this Court, the relevant notification has been referred to on the basis of a copy thereof that was appended to the papers filed by the REPCO Home Finance Limited.