Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 07 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Petition No. WP 23815 of 2025 filed by M. Vinod Kumar (address: Door No.118/46‑f, Convent Road, New Fairlands, Salem) seeking a writ of mandamus against first respondent M/s.Repco Home Finance Limited, Namakkal Branch (address: Door No.180‑181, Ganeshapuram, Pillaiyarkovil Street, Thuraiur Road, Namakkal) and second respondent S. Rajendran (address: D.No.125/55C, Thiruchengod Road, Namakkal).
  • The prayer was to compel the first respondent to hand over physical possession of a property measuring 6¼ cent out of a total 2 acre 83 cents, identified as Survey No.300/4, Ward A, Block 6, T.S. No.7/11, situated at Door No.127/55D and 129/55E, Thiruchengode Road, Namakkal, together with the building, electricity service connection No.04‑201‑006‑0764 and all other amenities, or alternatively to repay the full sale consideration of Rs 1,21,65,000 with interest at 24 % per annum from 23 April 2021 until payment.
  • The petitioner also highlighted that a securitisation application filed by him remains pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal for the past five years.

Court Reasoning

  • The Court examined jurisdiction under Article 226, noting that a writ can be issued only against the State, its instrumentalities, or a private body performing a public function.
  • It held that Repco Home Finance Limited is a private non‑banking finance company enforcing a private contractual right and security interest; it does not discharge any public duty or statutory function.
  • The decision relied on the Supreme Court judgment in S. Shobha v. Muthoot Finance Ltd (2025 SCC OnLine SC 177), which enumerated the categories of entities against which a writ under Article 226 may be maintained and clarified that compliance with RBI guidelines does not convert a private NBFC into a public authority.
  • Consequently, the Court concluded that the first respondent cannot be subjected to writ jurisdiction in the absence of a statutory public duty.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable; no order as to costs is made.
  • The petitioner is at liberty to file an appropriate application before the concerned Debts Recovery Tribunal seeking an early hearing of the pending securitisation application.

Topics: Writ Jurisdiction, NBFC Regulation