Delhi High Court
Ashish Tiwari vs Union Bank Of India on 31 January, 2022
Author: Rekha Palli
Bench: Rekha Palli
Via video conferencing
$~
Date of Decision:- 31.01.2022
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 10223/2021 & CM APPL. 31512/2021 (stay)
ASHISH TIWARI ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Ashish Chauhan, Adv.
versus
UNION BANK OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr.V.Giri, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Ramesh
Babu, Ms.Manisha Singh, Ms.Nisha
Sharma, Ms.Sanya Panjwani,
Ms.Tanya Chowdhary & Ms.Jagriti
Bharti, Advs. for RBI
Mr.O.P.Gaggar, Adv. for R-1
+ W.P.(C) 11168/2021 & CM APPL. 34378/2021 (stay)
ARUN KUMAR SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Anshul Gupta, Mr.Nihaar Reddy,
Mr.Rohan Aggarwal & Ms.Kirti Dua,
Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.V.Giri, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Ramesh
Babu, Ms.Manisha Singh, Ms.Nisha
Sharma, Ms.Sanya Panjwani,
Ms.Tanya Chowdhary & Ms.Jagriti
Bharti, Advs. for RBI
Mr.Jitesh Vikram Srivastava &
Mr.Prajesh Vikram Srivastava, Mr.
Satish Kumar, Mr.Gautam Singhal,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GARIMA MADAN
Location: W.P.(C) 10223/2021 & conn. Page 1 of 33
Signing Date:02.02.2022
14:47:43
Mr.Rajat Chaudhary & Ms.Divya,
Advs. for R-2
Mr.Gautam Singhal, Adv. for R-3
Mr.Manu Beri & Mr.Prateek
Kasliwal, Advs. for R-6
+ W.P.(C) 11184/2021 & CM APPL. 34431/2021 (stay)
UJJWAL SEN ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Anshul Gupta, Mr.Nihaar Reddy,
Mr.Rohan Aggarwal & Ms.Kirti Dua,
Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Jitesh Vikram Srivastava &
Mr.Prajesh Vikram Srivastava, Adv.
for R-1
Mr.O.P.Gaggar, Adv. for R-5
Mr.Manu Beri & Mr.Prateek
Kasliwal, Advs. for R-4
+ W.P.(C) 11266/2021 & CM APPL. 34681/2021 (stay)
RAJUL GOSWAMI ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Anshul Gupta, Mr.Nihaar Reddy,
Mr.Rohan Aggarwal & Ms.Kirti Dua,
Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Anil Soni, CGSC
Mr.Ajay Kohli, Mr.S.S. Sobti &
Ms.Saloni Jain, Advs. for R-3.
Mr.Manu Beri & Mr.Prateek
Kasliwal, Advs. for R-5
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GARIMA MADAN
Location: W.P.(C) 10223/2021 & conn. Page 2 of 33
Signing Date:02.02.2022
14:47:43
+ W.P.(C) 11995/2021 & CM APPL. 37062/2021 (stay)
SUNNY GROVER ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Anshul Gupta, Mr.Nihaar Reddy,
Mr.Rohan Aggarwal & Ms.Kirti Dua,
Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Anil Dabas, Adv.
Mr.Rajeeve Mehra & Ms.Jagriti
Ahuja, Advs. for HDFC Bank
Mr.Sanjeev Singh, Ms.Kajal Bhatia &
Mr.Abhinav Deshwal, Advs. for R-3.
Mr.Manu Beri & Mr.Prateek
Kasliwal, Advs. for R-5
+ W.P.(C) 11998/2021 & CM APPL. 37066/2021 (stay)
SUSHEEL PATWAL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Anshul Gupta, Mr.Nihaar Reddy,
Mr.Rohan Aggarwal & Ms.Kirti Dua,
Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Manu Beri & Mr.Prateek
Kasliwal, Advs. for R-4
+ W.P.(C) 12222/2021 & CM APPL. 38270/2021 (stay)
SANJEEV KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Anshul Gupta, Mr.Nihaar Reddy,
Mr.Rohan Aggarwal & Ms.Kirti Dua,
Advs.
versus
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GARIMA MADAN
Location: W.P.(C) 10223/2021 & conn. Page 3 of 33
Signing Date:02.02.2022
14:47:43
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.V.Giri, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Ramesh
Babu, Ms.Manisha Singh, Ms.Nisha
Sharma, Ms.Sanya Panjwani,
Ms.Tanya Chowdhary & Ms.Jagriti
Bharti, Advs. for RBI
Ms.Nidhi Raman, CGSC, with
Mr.Zubin Singh, Adv.
Mr.Rajeeve Mehra & Ms.Jagriti
Ahuja, Advs. for HDFC Bank
Mr. Sumeet Sharma, Mr. Divyanshu
Gupta & Mr. Sarthak Garg, Advs. for
R-5
Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Ms. Niharika
Sharma & Ms. Ruchi Goyal, Advs.
for R-6
+ W.P.(C) 12250/2021 & CM APPL. 38317/2021 (stay)
JAYANTA KUMAR MISHRA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Anshul Gupta, Mr.Nihaar Reddy,
Mr.Rohan Aggarwal & Ms.Kirti Dua,
Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar,
CGSC with Mr.Karan Chibber &
Ms.S Bushra, Advs.
Mr. Deepak Jain, SC with
Mr.Tanpreet Gulati, Advs. for Canara
Bank
+ W.P.(C) 12368/2021 & CM APPL. 38897/2021 (stay)
RAJNEESH AGARWAL AND ORS ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Aditya Parolia, Mr. Piyush Singh,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GARIMA MADAN
Location: W.P.(C) 10223/2021 & conn. Page 4 of 33
Signing Date:02.02.2022
14:47:43
Mr. Akshay Srivastava, Ms. Aditi
Sinha & Mr. Sourav Sharma, Advs
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Sunieta Ojha, Adv. for UOI
Mr.Sanjeev Sagar, SC with Ms.Nazia
Parveen, Adv. for SBI
Mr.Sanjeev Singh, Mr.Prashant
Tripathi & Ms.Ridhi Pahuja, Advs.
for R-4.
Mr. Kuber Dewan, Ms. Neeharika
Aggarwal & Ms. Trisha
Raychaudhuri, Advs. for R-6.
Mr. Hemant Gupta, Adv. for R-7.
Mr.Manu Beri & Mr.Prateek
Kasliwal, Advs. for R-9
+ W.P.(C) 12461/2021 & CM APPL. 39219/2021 (stay)
SATVINDER KUMAR SACHDEVA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.K.K. Tyagi & Mr.Iftekhar Ahmad,
Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr.V.Giri, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Ramesh
Babu, Ms.Manisha Singh, Ms.Nisha
Sharma, Ms.Sanya Panjwani,
Ms.Tanya Chowdhary & Ms.Jagriti
Bharti, Advs. for RBI
Mr.Arvind Jadon & Mr.Sachin
Shukla, Advs. for R-4.
+ W.P.(C) 13159/2021 & CM APPL. 41524/2021 (stay)
ASHISH TIWARI ..... Petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GARIMA MADAN
Location: W.P.(C) 10223/2021 & conn. Page 5 of 33
Signing Date:02.02.2022
14:47:43
Through
versus
ICICI BANK LTD ..... Respondent
Through
+ W.P.(C) 13232/2021 & CM APPL. 41767/2021 (stay)
PUNEET NAWAL SINGH AND ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Aditya Parolia, Mr. Piyush Singh,
Mr. Akshay Srivastava, Ms. Aditi
Sinha & Mr. Sourav Sharma, Advs
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Jitesh Vikram Srivastava &
Mr.Prajesh Vikram Srivastava, Advs.
for R-1.
Mr.Aditya Sharma & Mr.Siddharth
Nigotia, Advs. for R-3
Mr.Manu Beri & Mr.Prateek
Kasliwal, Advs. for R-5
+ W.P.(C) 13257/2021 & CM APPL. 41850/2021 (stay)
ARINDAM GHOSAL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Anshul Gupta, Mr.Nihaar Reddy,
Mr.Rohan Aggarwal & Ms.Kirti Dua,
Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Sanjeev Singh, Ms.Kajal Bhatia &
Mr.Abhinav Deshwal, Advs. for R-3.
Mr.Manu Beri & Mr.Prateek
Kasliwal, Advs. for R-4.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GARIMA MADAN
Location: W.P.(C) 10223/2021 & conn. Page 6 of 33
Signing Date:02.02.2022
14:47:43
Mr. Abhinav Goyal, Mr. Kushank
Sindhu, Ms.Gazal Ghai, Advs. for R-
5
+ W.P.(C) 13335/2021 & CM APPL. 42009/2021 (stay)
MR. DR. ASHOK KUMAR OMAR & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Shashwat Parihar, Mr.Shashwat
Anand, Ms.Adya Singh & Ms.Dhruva
Vig, Advs.
versus
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.V.Giri, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Ramesh
Babu, Ms.Manisha Singh, Ms.Nisha
Sharma, Ms.Sanya Panjwani,
Ms.Tanya Chowdhary & Ms.Jagriti
Bharti, Advs.
+ W.P.(C) 14359/2021 & CM APPL. 45253/2021 (stay)
VINAY KUMAR TIWARI & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr..Ashish Chauhan, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, CGSC with
Mr. Surender Kumar, Adv. for UOI
Mr. R K Sinha, Adv. for SBI
+ W.P.(C) 14828/2021 & CM.APPL.5398/2022 (directions)
SUVROJEET CHAKRABORTY ..... Petitioner
Through Ms. Kanika Singhal and Mr. Siddhant
Bajaj, Advs
versus
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GARIMA MADAN
Location: W.P.(C) 10223/2021 & conn. Page 7 of 33
Signing Date:02.02.2022
14:47:43
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.V.Giri, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Ramesh
Babu, Ms.Manisha Singh, Ms.Nisha
Sharma, Ms.Sanya Panjwani,
Ms.Tanya Chowdhary & Ms.Jagriti
Bharti, Advs. for RBI
Mr. Shashank Bajpai, Mr. Supragya
Ram Mishra & Mr. Shubhankar
Singh, Advs. for R-1
Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Adv. for R-3
Ms.Nishtha Khurana, Mr.Ishan
Dewan, Mr.Lokesh Malik, Mr.Anant
Singh Negi, Mr.Imran Khera, Advs.
for R-4
Mr.Sunil Dalal, Sr. Adv. alongwith
Ms.Ruchi Gour Narula, Mr.Devashish
Bhadauria, Mr.Mohit Bhadu, Advs,
for R-5
+ W.P.(C) 14859/2021 & CM APPL. 46893/2021 (stay)
VIVEK KUMAR DANDOTIA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Anshul Gupta, Mr.Nihaar Reddy,
Mr.Rohan Aggarwal & Ms.Kirti Dua,
Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.V.Giri, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Ramesh
Babu, Ms.Manisha Singh, Ms.Nisha
Sharma, Ms.Sanya Panjwani,
Ms.Tanya Chowdhary & Ms.Jagriti
Bharti, Advs. for RBI
Mr. Prakash Kumar, Adv. for UOI
Mr.Siddharth Sangal, Adv. for R-3
Mr.Manu Beri & Mr.Prateek
Kasliwal, Advs. for R-4
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GARIMA MADAN
Location: W.P.(C) 10223/2021 & conn. Page 8 of 33
Signing Date:02.02.2022
14:47:43
+ W.P.(C) 1251/2022 & CM APPL. 3657/2022 (interim relief)
GAURAV GULATI & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr.Sidhant Kumar & Ms.Manyaa
Chandok, Advs.
versus
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.V.Giri, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Ramesh
Babu, Ms.Manisha Singh, Ms.Nisha
Sharma, Ms.Sanya Panjwani,
Ms.Tanya Chowdhary & Ms.Jagriti
Bharti, Advs. for RBI
Mr. Sunil Dalal, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Ankit Banati, Mr. Shravan Niranjan,
Advs. For India Bulls Housing
Finance
+ W.P.(C) 6466/2021 & CM APPL. 20342/2021(stay)
BALJIT SINGH BHATIA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Aditya Parolia, Mr. Piyush Singh,
Mr. Akshay Srivastava, Ms. Aditi
Sinha & Mr. Sourav Sharma,
Ms.Kanika Singhal and Mr. Siddhant
Bajaj, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Rahul Sharma with Mr. C. K.
Bhatt, Advs. for UOI
Mr. Manu Beri and Mr. Prateek
Kasilwal, Advs. for R-5
+ W.P.(C) 9491/2020 & CM APPL. 30535/2020 (stay)
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GARIMA MADAN
Location: W.P.(C) 10223/2021 & conn. Page 9 of 33
Signing Date:02.02.2022
14:47:43
SUPERTECH URBAN5 HOME BUYERS ASSOCIATION (SUHA)
FOUNDATION ..... Petitioner
Through Ms.Nina R Nariman, Mr. Aditya
Parolia, Mr. Piyush Singh, Mr.
Akshay Srivastava, Ms. Aditi Sinha &
Mr. Sourav Sharma, Advs
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Rahul Sharma, CGSC with Mr.
C. K. Bhatt & Mr.Vikrant N Goyal,
Advs. for UOI
Mr. Sunil Dalal, Sr. Adv. alongwith
Mr. Ankit Banati, & Mr. Shravan
Niranjan, Advs. for India Bulls
Housing Finance Ltd.
Mr.Rahul Malhotra and Ms.Himanshi
Madan, Advs.
Mr. Puneet Bajaj, Adv.
Ms. Ratna Dwivedi Dhingra, Adv
Mr.Nishant Awana, Adv. for R-11
Mr Vikrant N Goyal, Adv. for UOI
Mr. Hemant Gupta, Adv. for R-7
Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Mr. Prashant
Tripathi and Ms. Ridhi Pahuja, Advs.
for R-8
Mr. Kuber Dewan, Ms. Neeharika
Aggarwal and Ms. Trisha
Raychaudhuri Advs. for R-6
Mr. Venket Rao, Remya Ronald and
Sarthak Shukla, Adv. for PNB
Housing Finance Ltd.
Mr. Sunil Dalal, Sr. Adv, Mr. Ankit
Banati and Mr. Shravan Niranjan,
Advs. for R-4
Nishant Awana, Adv. for R-5
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GARIMA MADAN
Location: W.P.(C) 10223/2021 & conn. Page 10 of 33
Signing Date:02.02.2022
14:47:43
+ W.P.(C) 9493/2020 & CM APPL. 30538/2020 (stay)
GAUTAM SETHI & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Aditya Parolia, Mr. Piyush Singh,
Mr. Akshay Srivastava, Ms. Aditi
Sinha & Mr. Sourav Sharma, Advs
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Ajay Digpaul CGSC, Mr. Sahaj
Garg GP and Mr. Kamal R Digpaul,
Advs.
Mr. Sunil Dalal, Sr. Adv. alongwith
Mr. Ankit Banati, & Mr. Shravan
Niranjan, Advs. for India Bulls
Housing Finance Ltd.
Mr.Rahul Malhotra and Ms.Himanshi
Madan, Advs.
Mr. Puneet Bajaj, Adv.
Ms. Ratna Dwivedi Dhingra, Adv.
Mr.Nishant Awana, Adv. for R-7
Mr. Kuber Dewan, Ms. Neeharika
Aggarwal and Ms. Trisha
Raychaudhuri Advs. for R-10
Mr. Venket Rao, Remya Ronald and
Sarthak Shukla, Adv. for PNB
Housing Finance Ltd.
Mr. Sunil Dalal, Sr. Adv, Mr. Ankit
Banati and Mr. Shravan Niranjan,
Advs. for R-5
Mr. Nishant Awana, Adv. for R-5
+ W.P.(C) 5542/2021 & CM APPL. 17172/2021 (stay)
VIJAY KUMAR CHAUDHARY & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Arun Khatri and Mr.Akshay,
Advs.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GARIMA MADAN
Location: W.P.(C) 10223/2021 & conn. Page 11 of 33
Signing Date:02.02.2022
14:47:43
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr Vikrant N Goyal, Adv. for UOI
Mr. Manu Beri and Mr. Prateek
Kasilwal, Advs. for R-6
Ms.Nishtha Khurana, Mr.Ishan
Dewan, Mr.Lokesh Malik, Mr.Anant
Singh Negi & Mr.Imraan Khera,
Advs. for R-3,
Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Adv. for NHB
+ W.P.(C) 5870/2021 & CM APPL. 18431/2021 (stay)
SHREESH SHUKLA AND ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Aditya Parolia, Mr. Piyush Singh,
Mr. Akshay Srivastava, Ms. Aditi
Sinha & Mr. Sourav Sharma, Advs
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Vijay Joshi and Mr. Himanshu
Pathak, Advs. for UOI
Mr.Ajay Kohli, Mr.S.S. Sobti &
Ms.Saloni Jain, Advs. for R-6
Mr. Sunil Dalal, Sr. Adv. alongwith
Mr. Ankit Banati, & Mr. Shravan
Niranjan, Advs. for India Bulls
Housing Finance Ltd.
Mr. Manu Beri and Mr. Prateek
Kasilwal, Advs. for R-7
Ms. Ratna Dwivedi Dhingra, Adv.
Mr. Sunil Dalal, Sr. Adv, Mr. Ankit
Banati and Mr. Shravan Niranjan,
Advs. for R-5
Mr. Ajay Kohli, Mr. S. S. Sobti and
Ms. Saloni Jain, Advs. for R-6
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GARIMA MADAN
Location: W.P.(C) 10223/2021 & conn. Page 12 of 33
Signing Date:02.02.2022
14:47:43
+ W.P.(C) 5879/2021 & CM APPL. 18489/2021 (stay)
KAUSHIK BOSE AND ORS ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Aditya Parolia, Mr. Piyush Singh,
Mr. Akshay Srivastava, Ms. Aditi
Sinha & Mr. Sourav Sharma, Advs
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr.V.Giri, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Ramesh
Babu, Ms.Manisha Singh, Ms.Nisha
Sharma, Ms.Sanya Panjwani,
Ms.Tanya Chowdhary & Ms.Jagriti
Bharti, Advs. for RBI
Mr.Rahul Malhotra and Ms.Himanshi
Madan, Advs.
Ms.Heena Kochar Adv. for
Mr.Gaurang Kanth, CGSC for UOI
Mr. Sunil Dalal, Sr. Adv. alongwith
Mr. Ankit Banati, & Mr. Shravan
Niranjan, Advs. for India Bulls
Housing Finance Ltd.
Ms. Ratna Dwivedi Dhingra, Adv
Mr. Ajay Kohli, Mr.S.S. Sobti &
Ms.Saloni Jain, Advs. for R-7
Mr. Manu Beri and Mr. Prateek
Kasilwal, Advs. for R-12
Mr. Jatin Puniyani, Adv. for R-1/UOI
Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Mr. Prashant
Tripathi and Ms. Ridhi Pahuja, Advs.
for R-9
Mr. Kuber Dewan, Ms. Neeharika
Aggarwal and Ms. Trisha
Raychaudhuri Advs. for R-8
Mr. Sunil Dalal, Sr. Adv, Mr. Ankit
Banati and Mr. Shravan Niranjan,
Advs. for R-5
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GARIMA MADAN
Location: W.P.(C) 10223/2021 & conn. Page 13 of 33
Signing Date:02.02.2022
14:47:43
Mr. Ajay Kohli, Mr. S. S. Sobti and
Ms. Saloni Jain, Advs. for R-7
+ W.P.(C) 6165/2021 & CM APPL. 19547/2021 (stay)
MOHD FAZAL HAMDANI ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Aditya Parolia, Mr. Piyush Singh,
Mr. Akshay Srivastava, Ms. Aditi
Sinha & Mr. Sourav Sharma, Advs
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Manu Beri and Mr. Prateek
Kasilwal, Advs. for R-5
Ms Nishtha Khurana, Mr.Ishan
Dewan, Mr.Lokesh Malik, Mr.Anant
Singh Negi & Mr.Imraan Khera,
Advs. for R-3
+ W.P.(C) 7749/2021 & CM APPL. 24201/2021(stay)
ANIRBAN DUTTA AND ORS ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Aditya Parolia, Mr. Piyush Singh,
Mr. Akshay Srivastava, Ms. Aditi
Sinha & Mr. Sourav Sharma, Advs
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through
Ms.Heena Kochar Advocate for
Mr.Gaurang Kanth, CGSC for UOI
Mr. Manu Beri and Mr. Prateek
Kasilwal, Advs. for R-5
Mr.Ajay Kohli, Mr.S.S. Sobti &
Ms.Saloni Jain, Advs. for R-4
Mr. Ajay Kohli, Mr. S. S. Sobti and
Ms. Saloni Jain, Advs. for R-4
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GARIMA MADAN
Location: W.P.(C) 10223/2021 & conn. Page 14 of 33
Signing Date:02.02.2022
14:47:43
+ W.P.(C) 7766/2021 & CM APPL. 24244/2021(stay)
PRADEEP BHARTIA AND ANR ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Aditya Parolia, Mr. Piyush Singh,
Mr. Akshay Srivastava, Ms. Aditi
Sinha & Mr. Sourav Sharma, Advs
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Arman Ali, SPC with Mr.Athar
Raza Farooquei and Krishan Kumar,
Advs.
Mr. Sidharth Joshi, Mr. Ambreen and
Ms. Tanuja Chhetri, Advs. for R-3
Mr. Manu Beri and Mr. Prateek
Kasilwal, Advs. for R-5
Mr. Kuber Dewan, Ms. Neeharika
Aggarwal and Ms. Trisha
Raychaudhuri Advs. for R-4
+ W.P.(C) 7956/2021 & CM APPL. 24724/2021(stay)
HIMANSHU BAROLA AND ORS ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Aditya Parolia, Mr. Piyush Singh,
Mr. Akshay Srivastava, Ms. Aditi
Sinha & Mr. Sourav Sharma, Advs
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Ruchir Mishra and Mr. Mukesh
Kumar Tiwari, Adv.
Mr.Nishant Awana, Adv. for R-5
Mr. Manu Beri and Mr. Prateek
Kasilwal, Advs. for R-7
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GARIMA MADAN
Location: W.P.(C) 10223/2021 & conn. Page 15 of 33
Signing Date:02.02.2022
14:47:43
Mr.Ajay Kohli, Mr.S.S. Sobti &
Ms.Saloni Jain, Advs. for R-4
Mr. Kuber Dewan, Ms. Neeharika
Aggarwal and Ms. Trisha
Raychaudhuri Advs. for R-6
+ W.P.(C) 387/2021 & CM APPL. 1035/2021 (stay)
SARE SPRINGVIEW HEIGHTS BUYER WELFARE
ASSOCIATION ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Atul Kumar Singh, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Sunil Dalal, Sr. Adv. With Ms.
Ruchi Gour Narula, Mr. Devashish
Bhadauria, Mr. Mohit Bhadu, Advs.
for R-6
Mr.Nishant Awana, Adv. for R-5
Mr. Sarat Chandra, Adv. for UOI
Mr. Siddharth Sangal, Adv. for R-7
Mr. Kuber Dewan, Ms. Neeharika
Aggarwal and Ms. Trisha
Raychaudhuri Advs. for R-8
+ W.P.(C) 1144/2021 & CM APPL. 3235/2021 (stay)
GROUP CAPTAIN PRABHAKARA
KANKANADY RETD. ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Saurabh Ajay Gupta and Mr.
Nishant Bishnoi, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.V.Giri, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Ramesh
Babu, Ms.Manisha Singh, Ms.Nisha
Sharma, Ms.Sanya Panjwani,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GARIMA MADAN
Location: W.P.(C) 10223/2021 & conn. Page 16 of 33
Signing Date:02.02.2022
14:47:43
Ms.Tanya Chowdhary & Ms.Jagriti
Bharti, Advs. for RBI
Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, CGSC with
Mr. Surender Kumar, Adv. for UOI
Mr. Santosh Kumar Rout, Adv. for R-
3
Mr. Ajay Kohli, Mr. S. S. Sobti and
Ms. Saloni Jain, Advs. for R-5
+ W.P.(C) 1149/2021& CM APPL. 3250/2021 (stay)
PASHMINA BROOKWOODS APARTMENT
ALLOTTEES/OWNER WELFARE ASSOCIATION ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Aditya Parolia, Mr. Piyush Singh,
Mr. Akshay Srivastava, Ms. Aditi
Sinha & Mr. Sourav Sharma, Advs
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.V.Giri, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Ramesh
Babu, Ms.Manisha Singh, Ms.Nisha
Sharma, Ms.Sanya Panjwani,
Ms.Tanya Chowdhary & Ms.Jagriti
Bharti, Advs. for RBI
Mr. Manish Mohan, CGSC with Mr.
Ms. Dhwani Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Ajay Kohli, Mr.S.S. Sobti &
Ms.Saloni Jain, Advs.
Mr.Nishant Awana, Adv. for R-5
Mr. Shashwat Kumar and Mr. Naman
Mittal, Advs. for R-6
Mr. Manu Beri and Mr. Prateek
Kasilwal, Advs. for R-7
Mr. Kuber Dewan, Ms. Neeharika
Aggarwal and Ms. Trisha
Raychaudhuri Advs.
Mr. Ajay Kohli, Mr. S. S. Sobti and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GARIMA MADAN
Location: W.P.(C) 10223/2021 & conn. Page 17 of 33
Signing Date:02.02.2022
14:47:43
Ms. Saloni Jain, Advs. for R-4
+ W.P.(C) 1225/2021 & CM APPL. 3451/2021 (stay)
MOHINDER PAL SINGH & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Aditya Parolia, Mr. Piyush Singh,
Mr. Akshay Srivastava, Ms. Aditi
Sinha & Mr. Sourav Sharma, Advs
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.V.Giri, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Ramesh
Babu, Ms.Manisha Singh, Ms.Nisha
Sharma, Ms.Sanya Panjwani,
Ms.Tanya Chowdhary & Ms.Jagriti
Bharti, Advs. for RBI
Mr. Ashish Makhija and Mr. Deep
Bisht, Advs. for R-3
Mr. Manu Beri and Mr. Prateek
Kasilwal, Advs. for R-8
Mr. Kuber Dewan, Ms. Neeharika
Aggarwal and Ms. Trisha
Raychaudhuri Advs. for R-6
Ms. Suparna Srivastava, CGSC
with Soumya Singh, Advocate
+ W.P.(C) 1377/2021
J B SINGH & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Nupur Mitra, Adv.
versus
PNB HOUSING FINANCE LTD & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Ajay Kohli, Mr.S.S. Sobti &
Ms.Saloni Jain, Advs. for R-1.
Mr. Kuber Dewan, Ms. Neeharika
Aggarwal & Ms. Trisha
Raychaudhuri, Advs. for R-6
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GARIMA MADAN
Location: W.P.(C) 10223/2021 & conn. Page 18 of 33
Signing Date:02.02.2022
14:47:43
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL)
CM APPL.5399/2022 in W.P.(C) 14828/2021
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Notarized affidavit be filed within two weeks of this Court resuming physical hearing.
3. The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C)10223/2021, W.P.(C)11168/2021, W.P.(C)11184/2021, W.P.(C)11266/2021, W.P.(C)11995/2021, W.P.(C)11998/2021, W.P.(C)12222/2021, W.P.(C)12250/2021, W.P.(C)12368/2021, W.P.(C)12461/2021, W.P.(C)13159/2021, W.P.(C)13232/2021, W.P.(C)13257/2021, W.P.(C)13335/2021, W.P.(C)14359/2021, W.P.(C)14828/2021, W.P.(C)14859/2021, W.P.(C)1251/2022, W.P.(C)6466/2021, W.P.(C)9491/2020, W.P.(C)9493/2020, W.P.(C)5542/2021, W.P.(C)5870/2021, W.P.(C)5879/2021, W.P.(C)6165/2021, W.P.(C)7749/2021, W.P.(C)7766/2021, W.P.(C)7956/2021, W.P.(C)387/2021, W.P.(C)1144/2021, W.P.(C)1149/2021, W.P.(C)1225/2021 & W.P.(C)1377/2021
4. The present batch of petitions preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, brings into light the well-known sorry state of affairs which has been recently going on in the construction industry. The petitioners, who are all home buyers, having booked their flats by giving the initial advance instalments from their hard-earned income, have approached this Court with a grievance that despite the Circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as RBI), and the National Housing Bank (hereinafter referred to as NHB), which clearly mandate that the banks Signature Not Verified Signed By:GARIMA MADAN Location: W.P.(C) 10223/2021 & conn. Page 19 of 33 Signing Date:02.02.2022 14:47:43 and other financial institutions should desist from offering loans in subvention schemes offered by the developer, and should disburse the loan only on the basis of the stages of construction, the banks, as also the various housing finance institutions, have been disbursing the loan amount to the developers without even examining the fact as to whether the developers are in a position to complete the construction.
5. The petitioners herein, booked their flats with the respondent developers and took home loans under the subvention scheme by entering into a tripartite agreement with the developers and the bank/Housing Finance Companies (hereinafter referred to as HFCs). The scheme provided for the banks/HFCs to disburse the sanctioned amount directly to the accounts of the developers, who were to then pay the pre-EMIs or the full EMIs on the sanctioned loan amount, until such a time that the possession of the booked residential units would be handed over to the home buyers. In most cases, it was also provided that if the possession of the residential flats could not be delivered in the time stipulated by the developers, it would be up to the developers to continue payment of the pre-EMIs, till the finally handing over possession to the home buyers.
6. However, when the developers started defaulting in making the payments towards the EMIs to the banks/HFCs, action had been initiated by most banks and HFCs against the petitioners. The said action was taken based primarily on the premise that, in terms of the home loan agreement entered into between the parties, the petitioner borrowers, had made a categorical assurance to the banks/HFCs, that there would be no default in payment of the EMIs, and the petitioner borrowers' liability to repay the loan was an independent contractual obligation, irrespective of any dispute Signature Not Verified Signed By:GARIMA MADAN Location: W.P.(C) 10223/2021 & conn. Page 20 of 33 Signing Date:02.02.2022 14:47:43 that may arise between the developer and the borrower. It was at this stage that the present petitions have been filed, seeking a direction to the bank/HFCs not to charge the EMIs from the petitioners and other home buyers, till possession is delivered to them by the developers.
7. In support of their prayer, the petitioners have placed reliance on the directions issued by the RBI and NHB vide the circulars and guidelines issued from time to time, wherein the banks and the HFCs have been directed to exercise due caution while disbursing of housing loans sanctioned to individuals. As per the circulars issued by the RBI, without carrying out due diligence as to the stage of construction, no disbursal of housing loans sanctioned to individuals should be made. In fact, the practice of upfront disbursement in cases of incomplete or under-construction housing projects has been deprecated.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit, that once the respondent HFCs have chosen to act in flagrant violation of the directions issued by the RBI and the NHB, they cannot claim payment towards the loan amount, which they pre-maturely disbursed to the developers from the petitioners. Moreover, as per the agreement between the parties, the pre-EMIs and EMIs were to be paid by the developers until the possession was handed over to the home buyers, which the developers have now stopped paying. Therefore, merely because the petitioners i.e., the home buyers had entered into a tri- partite agreement with the banks/housing finance institutions and the developers, they cannot be held liable to re-pay the loan amount, on account of default of the developers who have not only stopped paying the EMIs, but have also not, till date, handed over possession of the flats to any home buyers.
Signature Not Verified Signed By:GARIMA MADAN Location: W.P.(C) 10223/2021 & conn. Page 21 of 33 Signing Date:02.02.2022 14:47:439. They contend that that the bank/financing institutions, have in fact, acted in collusion with the developers, in releasing the loan amount even without examining whether the developer was in a position to construct the flats or not and are, therefore, also guilty of dereliction of duty by issuing loans in respect of projects, which both the developers, and the bank/HFC, knew would not take off, or were not on track to be completed at a suitable time.
10. They therefore, pray, that in these circumstances, when the petitioners have already been deprived of their hard-earned money, and that too without the completion of the construction of the housing projects being anywhere in sight, the banks/HFCs ought not to be permitted to take any coercive action against the petitioners, as they had, despite the directions of the RBI, released the loan amount without carrying out due diligence to the developers, many of whom are now facing insolvency proceedings. It is contended that, on account of these coercive steps, the negative impact on the petitioner's credit rating or CIBIL score, has left them without even the option of obtaining any credit facilities, even in case of emergencies and that too when, due to the prevailing Covid-19 pandemic in the country, and the ensuing lockdowns/curfews imposed to restrict the spread of the same, incomes and savings have already been severely affected.
11. In support of the petitions, reliance is placed on the orders passed in W.P. (C) 6774/2021 titled as Hridesh Kumar Pathak v. Bank of Maharashtra and W.P. (C) 10759/2021 being Jayanta Kumar Mishra and Another v. Union of India, wherein the Division Bench has, by way of interim orders, restrained the banks/HFCs from taking coercive steps against the petitioners/home buyers. Reliance is further placed on a recent decision Signature Not Verified Signed By:GARIMA MADAN Location: W.P.(C) 10223/2021 & conn. Page 22 of 33 Signing Date:02.02.2022 14:47:43 of the Apex Court in Supertech Ltd. vs. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association (2021) 10 SCC 1, wherein, after noticing the plight of the homebuyers, the Court has directed the developer to refund the entire amount with interest.
12. Though pleadings in some of the matters are still not complete, learned counsel for the banks/HFCs, have vehemently opposed the grant of any interim relief. They submit that once the petitioners had knowingly signed a tri-partite agreement, they cannot now shift the blame solely on the bank or the HFCs for any default on the part of the developers, and evade their liability to re-pay EMIs in respect of the loans issued in the favour of the petitioners. While not denying, that the constructions of flats has not been completed in any of the projects herein, they submit that payment was released on the basis of specific requests received from the petitioners, who cannot shirk from discharging their liabilities under the contract.
13. Mr. Dalal, learned senior counsel for the HFCs further submits, that in some of the petitions, arbitral awards in respect of the amount payable by the petitioners, in accordance with the tri-partite agreement have already been passed and therefore, contends that the present petitions are not maintainable. He submits, that in case, any of the banks/HFCs have violated any of the guidelines issued by the RBI, then it is for the RBI to take appropriate action against them. However, he seeks to urge, that this does not entitle the petitioners to seek any interim protection in these proceedings.
14. Learned senior counsel, Mr. V. Giri, appearing for the RBI, submits that the Banks and HFCs are required to comply with the directions and guidelines issued by the RBI issued under section 35A of the Banking Signature Not Verified Signed By:GARIMA MADAN Location: W.P.(C) 10223/2021 & conn. Page 23 of 33 Signing Date:02.02.2022 14:47:43 Regulations Act, 1949. He submits that vide the Master Circular on Housing Finance dated 01.07.2015, the RBI has emphasised that the banks, while introducing any kind of product, should take into account, the customer suitability and ensure that the borrowers are made fully aware of the risks and liabilities under such products. In fact, vide para 3 (f) of the said circular, the banks have been advised that disbursal of housing loans to individuals should be closely linked to the construction of the housing project and upfront disbursal should not be made in cases of projects which are still under construction. Mr. Giri, further submits that, the banks have been advised to appoint an architect to certify the various stages of construction of the projects, and have been further advised to ensure that there is no diversion or siphoning of funds, for which purpose, the banks should consider engaging their own auditors.
15. Mr. Giri, submits that, even though, subvention schemes do not directly fall under the regulatory purview of the RBI, and the decision to be a part of such a scheme was taken by the banks and HFCs after assessing customer suitability, both the RBI and the NHB, have consistently advised vide their various circulars, not only the banks, but also the HFCs, not to offer loan products to individuals which involved such schemes. He further submits, that insofar as the HFCs are concerned, the regulatory control qua them, which was earlier with the NHB, has now been transferred to the RBI with effect from 09.08.2019 whereafter, the RBI has, on 17.02.2021, issued 'Master Direction- Non-Banking Financial Company-Housing Finance Company (Reserve Bank) Directions, 2021', which reiterate the directions earlier issued by the NHB vide its circulars 18.11.2013 and 19.07.2019. He thus submits that the directions issued by the RBI on 17.02.2021 are in line Signature Not Verified Signed By:GARIMA MADAN Location: W.P.(C) 10223/2021 & conn. Page 24 of 33 Signing Date:02.02.2022 14:47:43 with the earlier guidelines issued by the NHB, whereby the HFCs were directed to ensure that the disbursal of the loan amount is strictly linked with the stages of construction, and no upfront disbursement is made in case of an under-construction project.
16. He, thus contends, that it is evident that the circulars issued by the RBI as also the NHB, do not encourage such kind of disbursal by the Banks/HFCs as prescribed by the subvention schemes and, therefore, it is evident that the RBI has been discharging its statutory obligations. He further shows the Court that, as a part of its regulatory process, if any complaint is received by the RBI against any of the banks or HFCs, appropriate action, including penal action, wherever warranted, will be expeditiously taken as per law.
17. Having considered the submissions of the parties and perused the record, I find that the petitioners appear to have been left in the lurch and despite paying the advance amount and investing their hard-earned money to purchase their own residential homes, the construction of the residential flats/apartments have not been completed till date. The petitioners have not been granted possession of the residential units as promised by the developers, who have apparently already received the loan amounts from the bank/HFCs. From this, it prima facie appears that the loan amounts have been disbursed without any consideration to the stages of construction, which disbursal is evidently not in consonance with the guidelines of the RBI/NHB.
18. At this stage, I may first note the relevant extracts of the RBI circular dated 01.07.2015, pertaining to the issue of subvention schemes or "innovative housing loan schemes". Paragraph 3 (d) (e) and (f) of the same Signature Not Verified Signed By:GARIMA MADAN Location: W.P.(C) 10223/2021 & conn. Page 25 of 33 Signing Date:02.02.2022 14:47:43 which read as under:
"(d) It has been observed that some banks have introduced certain innovative Housing Loan Schemes in association with developers / builders, e.g. upfront disbursal of sanctioned individual housing loans to the builders without linking the disbursals to various stages of construction of housing project, Interest/EMI on the housing loan availed of by the individual borrower being serviced by the builders during the construction period/ specified period, etc. This might include signing of tripartite agreement between the bank, the builder and the buyer of the housing unit. These loans products are popularly known by various names like 80:20, 75:25 schemes
(e) Such housing loan products are likely to expose the banks as well as their home loan borrowers to additional risks e.g. in case of dispute between individual borrowers and developers/builders, default/ delayed payment of interest/ EMI by the developer/ builder during the agreed period on behalf of the borrower, non-completion of the project on time etc. Further, any delayed payments by developers/ builders on behalf of individual borrowers to banks may lead to lower credit rating/ scoring of such borrowers by credit information companies (CICs) as information about servicing of loans get passed on to the CICs on a regular basis. In cases, where bank loans are also disbursed upfront on behalf of their individual borrowers in a lump-sum to builders/ developers without any linkage to stages of constructions, banks run disproportionately higher exposures with concomitant risks of diversion of funds.
(f) Banks are advised that disbursal of housing loans sanctioned to individuals should be closely linked to the stages of construction of the housing project / houses and upfront disbursal should not be made in cases of incomplete /under-construction / green field housing projects."
(emphasis supplied) Signature Not Verified Signed By:GARIMA MADAN Location: W.P.(C) 10223/2021 & conn. Page 26 of 33 Signing Date:02.02.2022 14:47:43
19. I may also refer to the circular dated 09.07.2019 issued by the NHB, which, while reiterating the warnings mentioned in the previous circulars, also goes on to state that funds released by any of the HFCs without linking the disbursal to the stage of construction, would be seen as a dereliction of duty on the part of such HFCs. The relevant extract thereof reads as under:
"3. Based on a review of the matter, HFCs are advised to desist from offering loan products involving servicing of the Loan dues by builders/ developers etc. on behalf of the borrowers. The prevalent products of HFCs, if any, should also be reviewed on the above lines. It is clarified that the above stipulation shall also be effected in cases wherein the HFC is yet to commence disbursements under the sanctioned cases.
4. Further, reference is also drawn to the Circular No.NHB(ND)/DRS/Policy Circular No.75/2016-17 dated July 01, 2016 whereby HFCs were again advised that disbursal of housing loans should be strictly linked to the stages of construction and no upfront disbursal should be made in case of incomplete/un-constructed projects. It is reiterated that disbursal of housing loans sanctioned to individuals should be closely linked to the stages of construction of the housing project/houses. In cases of projects sponsored by Government/Statutory Authorities, HFCs may disburse the loans as per the payment stages prescribed by such authorities, even where payments sought from house buyers are not linked to the stages of construction, provided such authorities have no past history of non-completion of projects.
5. HFCs should have in place a well-defined mechanism for effective monitoring of the progress of construction of housing projects and obtaining consent of the borrower(s) Signature Not Verified Signed By:GARIMA MADAN Location: W.P.(C) 10223/2021 & conn. Page 27 of 33 Signing Date:02.02.2022 14:47:43 prior to release of payments to the builder/ developer. Merely obtaining borrower consent and release of funds by the company without linkage to the stage of construction will be seen as dereliction of duty of the HFC."
20. I may also now refer to 'The Housing Finance Company (Reserve Bank) Directions, 2021' (hereinafter referred to as 'Directions'), issued by the RBI on 17.02.2021, with the objective of preventing the HFCs from conducting their affairs in a manner that might prove to be detrimental to investors and depositors, or prejudicial to the interests of such HFCs. Reference may be made to Clause 88 of these Directions, which deal with the subject of 'Disbursement Of Housing Loans To Individuals Linked To The Stages Of Construction'. The said Clause reads as under:
88. Disbursement of housing loan to individuals linked to the stages of construction 88.1. Disbursal of housing loans sanctioned to individuals shall be strictly linked to the stages of construction of the housing projects/ houses and upfront disbursal shall not be made in case of incomplete/ under-construction/ green field housing project/ houses.
88.2. HFCs while introducing any kind of product shall take into account the customer suitability and appropriateness issues and also ensure that the borrowers/customers are made fully aware of the risk and liabilities under such products.
88.3. In cases of projects sponsored by Government/ Statutory Authorities, HFCs may disburse the loans as per the payment stages prescribed by such authorities, even where payments sought from house buyers are not linked to the stages of construction, provided such authorities have no past history of non-completion of projects.Signature Not Verified Signed By:GARIMA MADAN Location: W.P.(C) 10223/2021 & conn. Page 28 of 33 Signing Date:02.02.2022 14:47:43
88.4. HFCs shall desist from offering loan products involving servicing of the loan dues by builders/ developers etc. on behalf of the borrowers.
88.5. HFCs shall have in place a well-defined mechanism for effective monitoring of the progress of construction of housing projects and obtaining consent of the borrower(s) prior to release of payments to the builder/developer.
88.6. HFCs while extending finance shall take into account the stipulations laid down under RERA, as applicable.
21. When seen in the light of these circulars, it prima facie appears, that the Banks/HFCs have disbursed the loans, without any regard to the advisories issued by the RBI and the NHB to banks and HFCs. The petitioners, who were looking for a roof over their heads, entered into the tripartite agreement with the banks/HFCs only under a bona fide impression that the builder would adhere to the terms of the said agreement, and take active steps towards completing the project on the given deadline. However, despite the banks and HFCs, having disbursed the loan amount, when the construction is admittedly not complete, the petitioners are now being asked to pay the amount that was initially required to be paid by the developer, in order to avoid coercive actions by the banks and HFCs.
22. At this stage, this court must also keep in mind that grave financial hardship is being caused to the petitioners, who are individual home buyers, on account of the devastating impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. I am, therefore, of the view that, the petitioners who have invested their lifetime savings and their hard-earned income to purchase residential units, cannot be made to suffer the consequences of this apparent collusion between the Signature Not Verified Signed By:GARIMA MADAN Location: W.P.(C) 10223/2021 & conn. Page 29 of 33 Signing Date:02.02.2022 14:47:43 banks/HFCs and the developers. The question as to whether the amount being claimed by the petitioners, ought to be paid by the developers, can be decided only at an appropriate stage after completion of pleadings. At this stage, it will be against the interest of justice to leave these individual homebuyers to face coercive action from the banks/HFCs.
23. Reference may be made to the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in WP (C) 6774/2021 titled Hirdesh Kumar Pathak v Bank of Maharashtra wherein a similar view was taken. Relevant observations of the Division Bench read as under-
"In our view, prima facie, it appears that the petitioner has been taken for a ride by the builder and it is not the petitioner, who has received the loan amount. The Bank has disbursed the loan amount to the builder, and in these circumstances, it remains to the seen as to whether, or not, the petitioner is at all liable. Moreover, the Resolution Plan appears to be on force and there would be no justification to subject the petitioner to the ongoing proceedings before the DRT at this stage. We, accordingly, stay further proceedings in O.A No. 166/2019 pending before the DRT-II, Delhi, till further orders."
24. It may also be appropriate to refer to the order passed in WP (C) 10759/2021 titled Jayanta Kumar Mishra & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors, wherein the Court directed that no recoveries could be made from the petitioners/homebuyers during the pendency of the petition. The relevant para reads as under-
"Let the respondent bank file its counter-affidavit before the next date. Till the next date, we direct that though the proceedings before the DRT in the pending Original Application may continue and the DRT may even proceed to pass the final order to issue Recovery Certificate, no Signature Not Verified Signed By:GARIMA MADAN Location: W.P.(C) 10223/2021 & conn. Page 30 of 33 Signing Date:02.02.2022 14:47:43 recovery shall be made from the petitioner till further orders in these proceedings."
25. It may also be useful to refer to the interim order passed by the Apex Court on 20.02.2018 in Supertech Ltd. v. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association. The relevant extract thereof reads as under:
"Mr. N. Swaminathan, learned counsel appearing for one of the persons falling in the last category submits that EMI is not being paid by the petitioner-developer. Having appreciated the controversy, we direct that the petitioner- Supertech Ltd. shall pay the EMI, so that the home-buyers do not get any kind of notice from bank(s)."
26. At this stage, it would also be apposite to refer to a judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Bikram Chaterjee vs. Union of India, [2018]147 SCL 154 wherein the Apex Court took cognizance of the fact that the banks had failed to comply with their duties, and had in fact colluded with the developer in committing a fraud on the home buyers, and breaching public trust. It may be useful to refer to paragraphs 69 and 127 of the judgement, which reads as under-
"69. In the instant matter, the question of larger public importance is involved. It is a shocking and surprising state of affairs that such large scale cheating has taken place and middle and poor class home buyers have been duped and deprived of their hard-earned money and lifetime savings and some of them had taken a loan from the bank and they are not getting houses. Bank has made payment to the builder, owners have the liability of making payment of amount with interest, homebuyers are still waiting for their dream houses to be completed.Signature Not Verified Signed By:GARIMA MADAN Location: W.P.(C) 10223/2021 & conn. Page 31 of 33 Signing Date:02.02.2022 14:47:43
127. The Forensic Auditors' report makes it apparent that Bankers have failed to ensure and oversee that the money was invested in the projects. It was diverted elsewhere as rightly found by the Forensic Auditors. Even what was paid by the home buyers, had not been used in the projects and stands diverted. There was, in fact, no necessity for raising the loans from the bank. The money borrowed from banks was used to create other assets worth thousands of crores. Thus, the banks can realise their money from those assets and from guarantors and not from the investment of home buyers, not from the buildings in which loans granted by banks have not been invested, which have been erected partially or some are at the nascent stage, for which hard- earned money has been paid by the home buyers"
27. In my view, the balance of convenience at this interim stage lies in favour of the beleaguered home buyers, keeping in view that they are being penalized despite not being at fault. The respondents' plea that the petitioners are obligated to pay the amount in the pre-EMIs and the EMIs, despite the admitted position that under the terms of the tri-partite agreement, it was incumbent upon the developers to pay the amount of EMIs until the possession of the flats was transferred to them, will need to be examined. However, at this interim stage, grave and irreparable loss will be caused to the petitioners if they are not granted any interim protection.
28. It is therefore, directed that till the next date, the respondents will stand restrained from taking any coercive steps against the petitioners. It is however, made clear that the observations made in this order are based on a prima facie view and will not prejudice any of the parties at the time of final hearing.
29. List on 28.03.2022.
30. Since, W.P.(C) 9491/2020 & W.P.(C) 1377/2021 are being treated, Signature Not Verified Signed By:GARIMA MADAN Location: W.P.(C) 10223/2021 & conn. Page 32 of 33 Signing Date:02.02.2022 14:47:43 with the consent of the parties, as the lead matters, the parties are granted liberty to file written submissions not running into more than 5 pages.
(REKHA PALLI) JUDGE JANUARY 31, 2022/kk Signature Not Verified Signed By:GARIMA MADAN Location: W.P.(C) 10223/2021 & conn. Page 33 of 33 Signing Date:02.02.2022 14:47:43