Delhi High Court - Orders
Anoop Jaiswal vs Union Of India & Ors on 6 September, 2022
Author: Najmi Waziri
Bench: Najmi Waziri
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 12884/2022
ANOOP JAISWAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Raghvendra M. Bajaj and Mr
Kumar Karan, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Vikrant N. Goyal, Ms Eshita
Mishra and Ms Rupali Kapoor,
Advocates for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN
ORDER
% 06.09.2022 The hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode (physical and virtual hearing).
CM APPL. 39155/2022 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed-off.
W.P.(C) 12884/2022 & CM APPL. 39154/2022 (Stay)
3. Issue notice. The learned counsel named above accepts notice on behalf of the respondent no.1. Reply and rejoinder be filed within four weeks each successively.
4. Notice be issued to the un-served respondents through ordinary process, approved courier, Speed Post, WhatsApp, e-mail, SMS, Signal, and other viable modes of electronic service as well, returnable on 11.10.2022.
5. It is the petitioner's case that the Bank loan was taken for construction Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ARUNA KANWAR Signing Date:09.09.2022 11:24:44 and delivery of an apartment by the property developer. The monies were released by the lender Bank to the latter but the property was not handed over within the promised time. Now, the property developer has gone into insolvency and the petitioner/borrower is being pursued to pay EMIs against the loan but the property is nowhere in sight. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the borrower is almost remediless against the defaulting developer who has enjoyed the benefits of the loan and saddled the borrower with unwarranted liabilities. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the dicta of the Supreme Court in Bikram Chatterjee v. Union of India:
W.P.(C) 940/2017 dated 18.04.2022.
6. Prima facie, the Bank was to verify, that the monies were utilized for the purpose they were loaned for i.e., the construction of apartments. The Bank chose to not verify this. For the Bank's prima facie lack of diligence, the petitioner who did not have any control over the monies, cannot be held liable at this stage.
7. In view of the above, no adverse action shall be taken against the petitioner till the next date.
8. Re-notify on 11.10.2022.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J VIKAS MAHAJAN, J SEPTEMBER 6, 2022/MK Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ARUNA KANWAR Signing Date:09.09.2022 11:24:44