J.M. Malik, Presiding Member—We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant at a considerable length. To our mind, at least two questions have to be answered at the stage of admission of this case. First of all, whether the petitioner is a ‘consumer’? Lastly, in view of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, whether this Commission has jurisdiction to try this case?

2. The facts of the case are these. Shiv Shankar Lal Gupta, the complainant in this case is a promoter of Clarity Gold Mint Ltd., a unit falling under SME Sector for the purpose of setting up of its project of mint of gold and silver coins and manufacturing of semi precious and precious stones studded jewellery. The complainant on account of his requirement approached the Kotak Mahindra Bank, opposite party in this case, at its Jaipur Branch for grant of loan interalia against the collateral security of immovable property situated at plot No. 4 Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.

3. The opposite party-bank vide its letter dated 25.9.2008 conveyed the sanction of term loan of Rs.500 lakh to the complainant carrying rate of interest i.e. flat