Delhi High Court - Orders
Binod Gupta vs Union Of India And Ors on 17 October, 2022
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~204
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 14620/2022 & CM APPL. 44812/2022
BINOD GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Aditya Parolia, Mr. Piyush Singh,
Mr. Akshay Srivastava and Mr. Akhil
Bharat Kukreja, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Jai Prakash, SPC with Mr.
Siddhant Gupta, G.P. for R-1.
Mr. Manu Beri, Mr. Prateek Kasliwal,
and Mr. Suryaprakash Pratap Singh,
Advocates for R-5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 17.10.2022 CM APPL. 44811/2022 (seeking exemption from filing the certified/ clear/ typed/ translated copies of the dim and illegible annexures)
1. Exemption is granted, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Petitioner shall file legible and clearer copies of exempted documents, compliant with practice rules, before the next date of hearing.
3. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 14620/2022
4. Although, Petitioner seeks parity with matters relating to subvention Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:20.10.2022 20:08:57 scheme, however counsel for Petitioner admits that there is no subvention such scheme recorded in any of the agreements placed on record. Nonetheless, he argues that subvention scheme can be inferred from the fact that Respondent No. 3-Shubhkamna Buildtech Private Limited has made certain payments towards pre-EMIs, in Petitioner's account.
5. Apart from the above, counsel for Petitioner argues that loan amount was disbursed upfront and not linked to stages of construction. On this issue, reference is made to 'payment schedule' annexed to 'Builder-Buyer Agreement' dated 22nd May 2013 [Annexure P-2A, at page 48]. The said schedule gives particulars of amounts that were to be paid, linked with construction. The construction of concerned project viz. 'Shubhamna-advert techHomes' commenced in 2011 and loan was availed in 2013. Accordingly, the Court has queried as to the stage of construction on the date of availment of loan. Counsel for Petitioner is not aware of the above fact and seeks time to take instructions.
6. The Court is not satisfied that Petitioner has served an advance copy on main contesting party i.e., Respondent No. 4-bank.
7. Let advance copy be served by speed post as well as by hand.
8. Re-notify on 30th January, 2023.
SANJEEV NARULA, J OCTOBER 17, 2022 as Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:20.10.2022 20:08:57