Delhi High Court - Orders
Sambhav Jain vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 July, 2022
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~61
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 11161/2022
SAMBHAV JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pramod Kumar and Mr. Bhola
Dayal, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Abhishek Anand and Mr. Pathik
Choudhury, Advocates for R-5
(Builder).
Ms. Nisha Sharma, Ms. Manisha
Sharma and Ms. Jagriti Bharti,
Advocates for R-2 (RBI).
Mr. Jivesh Kr. Tiwari, SPC with Ms,
Neha Sharma, Advocates for R-1
(UOI).
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 27.07.2022
1. Issue notice. Counsel for the Respondents, as mentioned in the appearance above, accept notice. Let counter-affidavits, if any, be filed within a period of three weeks from today. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter.
2. Let notice be served to the remaining Respondents, upon filing of process fee, by all permissible modes, returnable on the next date of hearing.
3. Petitioner submits that they were allotted an apartment/unit by Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:27.07.2022 19:45:41 Respondent No. 5 (hereinafter "Builder"). They also availed financial facilities vide a Tripartite Agreement with Respondent No. 4 (hereinafter "Bank") and the Builder, which were in the nature of subvention scheme. Further, Mr. Pramod Kumar, counsel for the Petitioner, has handed over across the board certain documents which he is directed to place on record on an affidavit within a period of one week from today. The Court has perused the same. It appears that the Builder had assured payment of pre- EMIs/EMIs to the Bank under a construction-linked payment plan. The Builder was entitled to receive payments in instalments linked with the construction. Mr. Kumar contends that the said construction-linked payment plan was approved by the Bank, however, contrary to the terms, approx. Rs. 19 lacs (out of the total of Rs. 25 lacs) have been disbursed to the Builder, in addition to approx. Rs. 4.16 lacs already paid by Petitioner to the Builder.
4. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that issues raised in the present petitions are squarely covered by the interim Orders dated 31st January, 2022,1 and 28th March, 2022,2 passed by this Court in a batch of petitions, wherein, the Court has directed Respondents not to take any coercive steps against the Petitioner therein. The said orders are continuing.
5. Accordingly, for reasons of parity, it is directed as follows: -
A. Respondents are restrained from taking any coercive action against the Petitioner till the next date of hearing.
B. The order would bind the assignees of debts from original lenders. C. Respondent No. 4/Bank is directed to provide information qua the Petitioners' CIBIL score to TransUnion CIBIL Limited [formerly 1 In W.P.(C) 10223/2021 & other connected matters.2
In W.P.(C) 3107/2022 & other connected matters.Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:27.07.2022 19:45:41
known as Credit Information Bureau (India) Ltd.], in terms of the order passed today, so that the CIBIL scores of the Petitioner is suitably amended in order to ensure that the Petitioner is not financially prejudiced.
6. It is, however, made clear that these directions are based only on a prima facie view as already recorded in the Order dated 31st January, 2022 passed in W.P.(C) 10223/2021 and will not prejudice any of the parties at the time of final hearing.
7. List along with the connected batch of petitions on 15th September, 2022.
SANJEEV NARULA, J JULY 27, 2022 nk Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:27.07.2022 19:45:41