Bombay High Court
Housing Development Finance ... vs Ratnesh Chand Jain And Ors. on 23 February, 2026
Author: Bharati Dangre
Bench: Bharati Dangre
1/11 7 WP-105-2020.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 105 OF 2020
Ratnesh Chand Jain and 53 Ors .. Petitioners
Versus
Union of India Through The Cabinet .. Respondents
Secretary and 12 Ors.
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4366 OF 2022
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.105 OF 2020
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1200 OF 2022
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.747 OF 2021
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 36258 OF 2023
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.747 OF 2021
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.2678 OF 2023
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.747 OF 2021
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3657 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4011 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4012 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4055 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4273 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4015 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3579 OF 2025
WITH
Ashish
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:28:58 :::
2/11 7 WP-105-2020.doc
WRIT PETITION NO. 4074 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4322 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3886 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4214 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3958 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4115 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4010 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3920 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4206 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3888 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3924 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4068 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2937 OF 2023
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4060 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3595 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2888 OF 2023
WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.16438 OF 2025
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4652 OF 2022
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3122 OF 2021
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.4652 OF 2022
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3084 OF 2024
Ashish
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:28:58 :::
3/11 7 WP-105-2020.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3465 OF 2023
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3345 OF 2022
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.881 OF 2022
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.3345 OF 2022
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2885 OF 2023
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4441 OF 2024
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4200 OF 2025
Mr. Zubin Behramkamdin, Sr Adv a/w Mr. Vyom Shah, Sol Nitya,
Kinnar Shah and Aditi Bhargava i/b Divya Shah and Associates, for
the petitioner in WP Nos. 2888 of 2023, 2885 of 2023, 3345 of 2022,
2937 of 2023 and 4652 of 2022.
Mr. Mukesh Vashi, Sr Adv a/w Vyom Shah, foram Vora, Manasi
Pawaskar i/b Amicus Lex Associates, for Petitioner in WP- 4441 of
2025.
Mr. Gaurav Jangle a/w Nidhi Mistry and Jay Waghmode i/b I.V.
Merchant and Co, Advocate for Petitioners in WP Nos. 4011 of 2025,
3657 of 2025, 4012 of 42025, 4055 of 2025, 4273 of 2025, 4015 of
2025, 3579 of 2025, 4074 of 2025, 4322 of 2025, 3886 of 2025, 4214
of 2025, 3958 of 2025, 4115 of 2025, 4010 of 2025, 3920 of 2025,
4206 of 2025, 3888 of 2025, 3924 of 2025, 4068 of 2025, 4060 of
2025, 3595 of 2025, WP No. 4200 of 2025, WP (L) No. 16438 of
2025.
Ms. Nadeem Shama a/w Salan Athania and Prashant Bothre i/b PAN
India Legal Service LLP for Petitioner in WP No. 747 of 2021.
Mr. Pemlal Krishnan a/w Nadeem Shama, Prashant Bothre and
Salman Athania i/b Pan India Legal Services LLP, for Petitioner in
WP No. 105 of 2020.
Mr. Hrushi Narvekar a/w Ms. Pranita Saboo, Manan Jaiswal and
Anushka Shetty i/b MLS Vani and Associate, Advocate for the
Petitioner in WP No. 3465 of 2023.
Ms. Deval Yadav i/b Lodha and Lodha Advocates for Petitioner in
Ashish
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:28:58 :::
4/11 7 WP-105-2020.doc
WP No. 1200 of 2022.
Mr. Ranjeev Pereira Carvalho a/w Ms Tanvi Darji i/b Indus Law,
Advocate for Respondent No.6 in WP No. 105 of 2020 and for
Respondent No.7 in WP No. 747 of 2021 and WPL No. 20535 of
2023.
Ms. Jyoti Mhatre a/w Ms. Anuja Tirmali, i/b Komal Punjabi for
Respondent No11- BMC in WP No. 747 of 2021.
Mr. Ashish Mehta i/b Ethos Leal Alliance, Advocate for Respondent
No.3 in WP No.4441 of 2024 and WP No. 747 of 2021.
Ms. Smita Thakur a/w Ms. Aleeba Hasan, Advocate for Respondent
No.1 in WPL No. 16438 of 2025.
Mr. Y.S. Bhate a/w Mr. Ajinkya Jaibhave, Advocate for Respondent
No.1 in WP No. 3084 of 2024.
Mr. C.M. Jadhav a/w Mr. Shashank Dubey, Mr. Madhukar Jadhav i/b
M/s. S.C. legal, Advocate for Respondent No.3 in WP No. 3657 of
2025, WP No. 4011 of 2025, 4012 of 2025, 4055 of 2025, 4273 of
2025, 4015 of 2025, 3579 of 2025, 4074 of 2025, 4322 of 2025, 3886
of 2025, 4214 of 2025, 3958 of 2025, 4115 of 2025, 4010 of 2025,
3920 of 2025, 4206 of 2025, 3888 of 2025, 3924 of 2025, 4068 of
2025 and WPL No. 16438 of 2025.
Ms. Apurva Sanglikar i/b Vidhii Partners, Advocate for Respondent
No.9 (ICICI Bank).
Ms. Megha Gupta a/w Khushboo Acharya i/b hedgehog and fox LLP
for Respondent No.6 (IHFL) in WP No. 4441 of 2024.
Mr. Alabha Lal a/w Anjali Sharma i/b TRI Legal, Advocate for
Respondent No.5 in WP No.747 of 2021 and WP No. 2888 of 2023
and for Respondent No.6 in Writ Petition No. 4652 of 2022.
Mr. Anirudh Ashok a/w Rahul Theckedath, Advocate for Respondent
No.4 in WP No. 3657 of 2025, 4011 of 2025, 4012 of 2025, 4055 of
2025, 4273 of 2025, 3579 of 2025, 4074 of 2025, 4322 of 2025, 3886
of 2025, 4214 of 2025, 3958 of 2025, 4115 of 2025, 4010 of 2025,
3920 of 2025, 4206 of 2025, 3888 of 2025, 3924 of 2025, 4068 of
2025, 4060 of 2025 and WP No. 3595 of 2025.
Ms. Princi Jaiswal a/w Nanhavi Hirlekar, Advocate for Respondent
No.3.
Mr. Yash Sinha i/b Tushar Goradia, Advocate for Respondent No.8.
Ms. Niyomin Jariwala i/b Nandita Gopalan, Advocate for Respondent
No.6, in WP No. 2888 of 2023.
Mr. Prasad Shenoy a/w Aditi Phatak and Ms. Parichar Zaiwalla and
Ishita Desai i/b BLAC Co, Advocate for RBI.
Mr. Rahul Gaikwad a/w Nikita Abhyankar and Komal Singh for
Ashish
::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:28:58 :::
5/11 7 WP-105-2020.doc
UNB in WP No. 747 of 2021, WP No. 2437 of 2023 and WP No.
2885 of 2023.
Mr. Aditya Shiralkar and Kanu Upadhyaya i/b Wadia Ghandy and
Co, Advocate for Respondent No.5 in WP No. 4652 of 2022 and WP
No. 4441 of 2024.
Mr. V. Mannadiar, Advocate for Respondent No. 7 in WP No. 105 of
2020.
Ms. Jyoti Mhatre a/w Ms. Anuja Tirmali, i/b Komal Punjabi for
Respondent No.9 - BMC in WP No.105 of 2020.
Mr. Kshitij Parekh a/w Mr. Vinod Khatri i/b Mr. A.R. Gole a/w Ms.
Vishwali Botle for PNB Housing Finance in WP No. 1200 of 2022,
2888 of 2023, 3465 of 2023, and 3345 of 2022.
Mr. Yash Momaya a/w Mr. Munaf Virjee and Mis Mithali Shetty i/b
AMR Law for Respondent No.4 in Writ Petition No. 4653 of 2022.
Ms. Rujuta Patil a/w Yohaan Shah, Mr. Hasan Mushabber, Ms.
Divishada Desai i/b Negandhi Shah and Himayatullah, for National
Housing Bank in WP No. 4652 of 2022, WP No. 105 of 2020 and WP
No. 3345 of 2022.
Smt. P.H Kantharia, GP a/w Smt. Jyoti Chavan, Addl GP, Mr. Milind
More, Addl GP, Mr. Vishal Thadhani, Addl GP, Ms. Manisha
Gawade, AGP, Ms. Varsha Sawant, AGP, Mr. Amar Mishra, AGP and
Mr. Himanshu Takke, AGP for State in all matters.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 23rd FEBRUARY, 2026 P.C:-
1. The above Writ Petitions are filed by the Home Buyers who availed the benefit of the subvention scheme "Book Now, pay after possession", which required them to pay around 5 % of the total consideration at the time of booking their flats and another around 15% at the time of taking possession. As far as the remaining amount towards the flat they have purchased was to be paid directly by the banks and the financial institutions, who offered the Home loans. The disbursement of the housing loans to the developer was linked to the Ashish ::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:28:58 ::: 6/11 7 WP-105-2020.doc construction in progress and the Promoters under the scheme were liable to pay interest on the disbursed amounts to the subvention lenders until possession of the flat is handed over to the Homebuyers.
Since the possession of the flat is not received by the Petitioners, but instead they were subject to the coercive actions by the bank/ the developers, they rushed to the Court seeking various direction, including the direction not to recover the loan amount from them until they are offered legal possession of their flats with Occupation Certificate.
The Petitioners primarily seek relief of a strict action being initiated by the State of Maharashtra along with the Reserve Bank of India and the Chief Vigilance Officer, National Housing Bank against the lenders as well as the developer.
2. We have heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Zubin Behramkamdin, who addressed us on behalf of all the Petitioners and on conclusion of his argument, as he has pointed out to us the following relevant facts, it has become necessary for us to postpone the hearing of the petition and we have curled down the reasons in the paragraphs to follow.
3. In one of the petitions, the learned Counsel Mr. Ashish Mehta has raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the Petition and in connection with this, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Zubin Behramkamdin has placed before us a decision of the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in a batch of petitions seeking reliefs identical to those sought in the petition before us, including issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus/certiorari, or any other Ashish ::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:28:58 ::: 7/11 7 WP-105-2020.doc writ directing the Respondent Bank/Financial Institutions not to charge the Pre-EMIs or full EMIs from the Petitioners/alike Home buyers till the possession is delivered with respect to their respective flats.
The judgment being delivered on 14/03/2023 by the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, considered the objection raised about the maintainability of the writ petitions in view of the availability of efficacious alternative remedies and the objection raised found favour with the learned Single Judge and with reference to the facts involved and on perusal of the authoritative pronouncements relied upon, the Court arrived at a conclusion that remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution being, in general discretionary, the High Court may refuse to grant where there exists an alternative remedy, which is equally efficient and adequate and the existence of an alternative remedy would be a good ground in refusing exercise of discretion under Article 226, though it may not be an absolute bar for grant of relief under Article 226.
Apart from this, with reference to the various clauses of the respective agreements, the Court also noted that the rights claimed by the Petitioners are eventually flowing from the respective agreements only which are flowing from the private contract and also involve complex and disputed question of fact and with the alternative forums already in place, any interference by the writ Court in the present case would amount to usurpation of powers vested with the respective forums.
In the wake of the availability of alternative remedy, the writ petitions were not entertained and came to be dismissed by conferring Ashish ::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:28:58 ::: 8/11 7 WP-105-2020.doc the liberty to avail such alternative remedies as available to them in accordance with law.
4. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Behramkamdin has placed before us the copy of the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 7649 of 2023 filed before the Apex Court arising out of the final judgment and order dated 14/03/2023, passed by the Delhi High Court and he has also invited our attention to the grounds raised therein.
Submitting that various Special Leave Petitions, which were filed involving the issue were clubbed by the Apex Court and in most of the Appeals, the Apex Court had continued the benefit of interim protection, which was already granted by the High Court and the protection was continued from time to time.
The senior counsel has placed before us an order passed in the group Appeals, comprising of 170 Petitions having been filed by over 1200 Home buyers/borrowers.
In the order dated 29/04/2025 their Lordships of the Apex Court noted thus:-
"1. This batch of cases, comprising more than 170 petitions have been filed by over 1200 homebuyer/borrowers. They have raised an issue of paramount importance re: the systematic failure of statutory and government authorities to discharge their functions, circumvention of regulatory framework by Banks and Housing Financial Corporations, and the resultant illicit benefits said to have been drawn by builders/developers at the cost of the homebuyers, who are now bearing the brunt of such failures."
5. Recording that the petitions involved 'subvention schemes' as regards the project launched in the years 2013-15, when most of the builder/developers started defaulting in payment of EMIs in the years 2018-19, the banks began to demand payments from Homebuyers, Ashish ::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:28:58 ::: 9/11 7 WP-105-2020.doc and consequential failure to make payments led to coercive action against Homebuyers, despite the units being incompleted and there being no occasion to offer possession.
In light of the grievance raised, detail information was sought from the parties and on 4/03/2025, the Court noted that there was some unholy nexus between the banks/ Housing Financial Corporations on one hand and the builder-cum-developers on the other.
6. The above, resulted into involvement of CBI and appointment of Mr. Rajiv Jain, Adv (former Director, Intelligence Bureau and former member of the National Human Rights Commission) as an Amicus Curiae.
Based on the analysis of the learned Amicus present before the Court through a report, the Court took into consideration the recommendation of the learned Amicus to focus upon the underlying nexus between the Supertec Ltd and 8 banks, some of whom are before us, reveling that Supertec Ltd had secured loans worth approximately Rs. 5,157.86 crores since 1998.
7. In light of the note of the learned Amicus, who made certain recommendations, the Superintendent of Police, CBI, through its affidavit suggested conduct of preliminary enquiries with a view to arrive at a finding as to what was the exact modus operandi of the builders; if and how they colluded with the financial institutions; and what was the exact criminality on part of the builders or financial institutions, and in the affidavit it proposed conduct of 7 preliminarily enquiries even covering the projects of the builders excluding M/s Ashish ::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:28:58 ::: 10/11 7 WP-105-2020.doc Supertec Ltd, falling outside NCR region i.e. Mumbai, Bangalore, Kolkata, Mohali and Allahabad and it proposed that 01 preliminary enquiry may be registered for all such projects.
8. Pursuant to this, the Apex Court issued the following directions:-
"17. While we propose to issue directions from time to time, pursuant to various recommendations made by the learned Amicus Curiae, as of now, we direct the Central Bureau of Investigation to register seven Preliminarily Enquiries, in the manner as suggested in the affidavit filed on its behalf. To be specific, the scope of these Preliminary Enquiries shall be as per paragraph 9 of the CBI's affidavit (reproduced above), namely;
"(i)One Preliminary Enquiry in respect of the projects launched by M/s Supertec Ltd;
(ii) One Preliminary Enquiry each (total five) in respect of projects in NCR in different areas, namely, NOIDA, Greater NOIDA, Yamuna Expressway, Gurugram, and Ghaziabad; and
(iii)One Preliminary Enquiry in respect of the projects outside of NCR, in which M/s Supertech Ltd. is not a builder/developer."
9. Mr. Behramkamdin, would also place before us the subsequent order of the Apex Court dated 22/07/2025, when the following statement is recorded:-
"11. So far as the preliminary enquiries undertaken in six cases is concerned, the CBI has proposed the further course of action in paragraph 83 of the report. The CBI has recommended registration of 22 regular cases to enable it to undertake further investigation into these matters. As of now, we accept the recommendations contained in Paragraphs 83, 84 and 85 of the report. Consequently, the CBI shall register the regular cases and proceed further in accordance with law.
13. So far as the preliminary enquiry in respect of the projects outside NCR, six weeks more time is granted to complete the preliminary enquiry."
10. From the aforesaid orders, it is evident to us that a preliminary enquiry in respect of the project outside NCR including Bombay, the Ashish ::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:28:58 ::: 11/11 7 WP-105-2020.doc Apex Court took note of the various issues highlighted by the learned Amicus and reflected the same in paragraph no. 15 to the following effect:-
"15. Mr. Rajiv Jain, learned Amicus Curiae, has submitted a comprehensive note dated 20.07.2025. His report has critically analysed the issue like: (i) unequal bargaining power between the parties resulting in contravention of guidelines of RBI and NHB; (ii) the status of the projects and payment plans; (iii) information about loan disbursements;;
(iv) lopsided terms of builder - homebuyer agreements; (v) possible recourse by banks/HFCS; (vi) property security myth and mortgage in builder - builder and tripartite/ quadripartite agreements and the role of development authorities, (vii) status of developers and hidden players -
role and impact; (viii) on efficacy of RERA and disclosures on their websites; (ix) regulatory lapses by development authorities; and (x) honoraria.
16. In the aforesaid report, Note No. 1 highlights the transparency and responsibility of development authorities including RERA and the necessity to reconsider their role with reference to the protection of home buyers from unscrupulous builders."
11. In the wake of the aforesaid orders being brought to our notice, we would only like to enquire from the learned counsel as to whether the report in respect of the projects in Bombay is already investigated by the CBI and placed before the Apex Court, as we are of the view that if the Hon'ble Apex Court is examining the issue on a wider aspect, in our opinion, we should stay our hands off, as long as the issue is pending before it or we receive certain further instructions that the modus operandi found by the CBI in respect of the projects in NCR is not noticed in the projects in Bombay.
12. For this reason, we deem it appropriate to adjourn the proceedings on 7/04/2026 and directed to be listed under the caption "For direction".
(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.) Ashish ::: Uploaded on - 06/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/03/2026 21:28:58 :::