Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Proshit Deb, Sucheta Mitra
For the Respondents: Soni Ojha, Sambrita B. Chatterjee

Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The core issue revolves around whether a housing finance company (HFC), specifically the respondent, qualifies as a non-banking financial company (NBFC) under applicable regulations, thus determining its authority to invoke the SARFAESI Act for debt recovery (!) (!) .

2. The petitioners obtained a home loan from the respondent, which was classified as a non-performing asset after default, prompting the respondent to issue a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act for recovery of dues (!) (!) (!) (!) .

3. The petition challenges the respondent’s authority to invoke the SARFAESI Act, arguing that as a housing finance company registered under the Act of 1987, it is not classified as a NBFC and therefore cannot act under the thresholds set for NBFCs (!) (!) (!) .

4. The respondent contends that it is a NBFC, as classified by various regulatory notifications and classifications issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), including the inclusion of the respondent in a recent official notification of NBFCs (!) (!) (!) .

5. The court examined the regulatory framework, including press releases, notifications, and circulars, establishing that housing finance companies registered under the Act of 1987 are now classified as NBFCs, and thus fall within the jurisdiction of the SARFAESI Act when the secured debt exceeds the specified threshold (!) (!) (!) (!) .

6. The court found that the respondent was specifically notified as a NBFC, and consequently, the threshold limits for invoking the SARFAESI Act apply. Since the claim amount was below Rs. 20 lakh, the respondent's action under the SARFAESI Act was deemed without jurisdiction and was set aside (!) (!) .

7. The court also addressed procedural aspects, noting that the petitioners' challenge on jurisdiction is valid and that the remedy under the SARFAESI Act is not an efficacious alternative for contesting the jurisdictional issue raised in the writ petition (!) (!) (!) (!) .

8. The decision clarifies that, despite the respondent being a housing finance company, its classification as a NBFC based on recent notifications and regulations makes it subject to the thresholds and provisions of the SARFAESI Act (!) (!) (!) (!) .

9. The court ordered that since the action was without jurisdiction, it is to be set aside, but the respondent is free to pursue recovery through other lawful means, as appropriate (!) .

10. No costs were awarded, and the court emphasized that urgent certified copies of the order could be provided upon application (!) (!) .

In summary, the court's ruling hinges on the classification of the respondent as a NBFC under recent regulatory notifications, which imposes a threshold limit on the invocation of the SARFAESI Act. Since the claim was below this limit, the respondent's action was found to be without jurisdiction and was accordingly nullified.