Delhi High Court - Orders
Pradeep Kumar Bhatt vs Reserve Bank Of India & Ors on 23 November, 2022
Author: Najmi Waziri
Bench: Najmi Waziri
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 16170/2022
PRADEEP KUMAR BHATT ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Manu Garg, Advocate.
versus
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Ramesh Babu M. R., Ms Manisha
Singh and Ms Sanya Panjwani,
Advocates for RBI.
Ms Mani Gupta, Advocate for R-
3/IRP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN
ORDER
% 23.11.2022 The hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode (physical and virtual hearing).
CM APPL. 50520/2022 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed-off. W.P.(C) 16170/2022 & CM APPL. 50521/2022 (Stay)
3. The petitioner states that they are identically placed with the petitioner in W.P.(C)14504/2022 titled as Navin Kumar v. RBI & Ors. in which interim protection has been granted to that petitioner. The said order, inter alia, reads as under:
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ARUNA KANWAR Signing Date:26.11.2022 18:07:56"CM APPL. 44308/2022 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed-off. W.P.(C) 14504/2022 & CM APPL. 44309/2022 (Stay)
3. The petitioner had agreed to purchase an apartment from the respondent no.3/property developer. In terms of the Flat Buyer Agreement between the petitioner and R- 3/property developer, the loan amount was to be released only in terms of the Construction Linked Payment Plan. Furthermore, the Circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India on 03.09.2013 mandates upon all banks to disburse housing loans towards property development only when it is closely linked to the stages of construction. Paragraph 3 of the said circular reads as under:-
"3.. In view of the higher risks associated with such lump-sum disbursal of sanctioned housing loans and customer suitability issues, 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...."
4. The salutary objective of the said circular was that there is monitoring regarding the use of the monies of the loan advanced to the developer for the sake of security of the purchaser of the property, the faithful use of the money in terms of the agreement between the parties. The Bank possibly never went to the site to monitor whether the property was being developed, as per the agreement between the parties. It released the amount in one lump sum, over which the petitioner had no control, now the money is sought to be recovered from the petitioner, who neither received the money nor has got the apartment in question.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ARUNA KANWAR Signing Date:26.11.2022 18:07:565. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the property had been sold possibly many times over and the said monies were in any case to be returned by the property developer/respondent no.3. Therefore, the proceedings initiated for the recovery from the petitioner is erroneous and needs to be stayed. The petitioner cannot be remediless, therefore, has invoked the writ jurisdiction.
6. In view of the above, further proceedings against the petitioner in OA No.880/2016 before the DRT, Delhi shall remain stayed."
4. Notice. The learned counsel named above accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 3 respectively.
5. Issue notice to the remaining respondent through ordinary process, approved courier, Speed Post, WhatsApp, e-mail, SMS, Signal, and other viable modes of electronic service as well, returnable on 01.12.2022 and 02.12.2022.
6. Replies, if any, be filed before the next date.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J VIKAS MAHAJAN, J NOVEMBER 23, 2022 MK Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ARUNA KANWAR Signing Date:26.11.2022 18:07:56