Delhi High Court - Orders
Mrs Vidya Basu & Anr vs Reserve Bank Of India & Ors on 23 December, 2022
Author: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Bench: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
$~56
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 17500/2022
MRS VIDYA BASU & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sidhant Kumar, Ms.Manyaa
Chandok and Ms.Vidhi
Udayshankar, Advocates
versus
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Ramesh Babu, Adv. with
Ms.Manisha Singh and Ms.Jagriti
Bharti, Advocates for RBI,
Respondent No. 1
Mr.Kuber Dewan, Ms.Neeharika
Aggarwal, Ms.Trisha Ray Chaudhuri
and Mr.Kaustubh Srivastava,
Advocates for Respondent No. 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH
ARORA
ORDER
% 23.12.2022 CM 55836/2022 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P. (C) 17500/2022 & CM 55835/2022 (stay)
1. The present petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking a direction to Respondent No.2, ICICI Bank Ltd., restraining them from recovering the monthly Equal Monthly Instalments (EMIs) payable under the Tripartite Agreement dated 31.10.2014 and the Loan Agreement dated 18.11.2014; and from taking any coercive steps against the Petitioner arising from the non- payment of such EMI.
2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners states that Petitioners in the year Signature Not Verified 2014, booked a Unit bearing No. 2302, in 'M Tower', with the Respondent Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:28.12.2022 20:59:59 No. 3, builder, namely, M/s Supertech Limited ('the Builder'), in the Project known as Supertech Hues, Sector 68, Sohna Road, Gurugram ('the Project') by making an initial payment of Rs. 6,00,000/- and payment of subsequent instalment of Rs. 11,34,575/-. He states that a Buyer Developer Agreement dated 30.10.2014 was also executed between the Petitioners and the Respondent No. 3, wherein it was stipulated that the possession of the Unit was to be handed over to Petitioner on or before July, 2018, which could be extended for an additional six months i.e., by December, 2018.
3. He states that in furtherance of the aforesaid Buyer Developer Agreement and the subvention payment plan, the Petitioners, Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 3, entered into a Tripartite Agreement ('loan agreement') dated 31.10.2014, for financing the housing loan. He states that a total amount of Rs. 83,84,189/- was sanctioned vide the said loan agreement and it was agreed between the parties that Respondent No. 2 Bank will disburse the payment to Respondent No. 3 in tranches, upon Respondent No. 3, achieving the milestones of construction.
4. He states that a Memorandum of Understanding/ a Subvention Agreement was executed between the parties on 31.10.2014, to record the terms of the 'No Pre EMI till Possession' scheme of purchase of the Unit.
5. He states that Respondent No. 2 disbursed the sanctioned loan amount to Respondent No. 3 without verifying the progress of construction and in the absence of demand for payment from Respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 2 therefore acted in contravention of the Tripartite Agreement. He states that as on February, 2022, the construction of 'M Tower', where the subject Unit is located has not even started on the site.
6. He states that the Respondent No. 3, in violation of the subvention agreement, has stopped making payments of Pre-EMIs to the Respondent Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD No. 2 and the Respondent No. 2 has started recovering the said EMIs from KUMAR VATS Signing Date:28.12.2022 20:59:59 the Petitioner's bank accounts, on the basis of the Electronic Clearance Authorization Form (ECS). He states that he seeks a direction to restrain the Respondent No. 2 from debiting his account and recovering the EMI and states that he is also seeking ad-interim relief to the same effect. In this regard he states that he relies upon the directions issued by Supreme Court in the case of Amrapali group of companies in W.P. (C) No. 940/2017 (Bikram Chatterji v. Union of India dated 18.04.2022) directing that the liability of a flat buyer to make payments to the bank will arise after the project is complete.
7. He states that in a batch of similar matters headed by W.P. (C) 10223/2021 (Ashish Tiwari Vs. Union Bank of India), a Co-ordinate bench of this Court has on 31.01.2022 granted interim relief to similarly placed Flat buyers by directing the respondent Bank therein not to take any coercive steps against the Petitioners. He states that similar orders have also been passed by another coordinate Bench in W.P. (C) 10686/2022 (Rakesh Verma Vs. Union of India). It is stated that the said interim orders continue to remain in effect till date.
8. In the interest of maintaining consistency and uniformity, this Court as well is inclined to pass interim orders in terms of order dated 31st January 2022 passed by the coordinate bench in Ashish Tiwari (Supra) and Rakesh Verma (Supra).
9. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by Mr. Ramesh Babu on behalf of Respondent No. 1 and Ms. Neeharika Aggarwal on behalf of Respondent No. 2.
10. Let notice be issued to Respondent No. 3 by all modes, returnable on 07.02.2023.
11. Counter Affidavits be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder if any, be Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD filed within 3 weeks thereafter.
KUMAR VATS Signing Date:28.12.2022 20:59:5912. Till the next date of hearing, the Respondent No. 2 shall stand restrained from taking any coercive steps against the Petitioners. The Petitioners' prayer seeking an interim direction to the Respondent No. 2 not to debit Petitioners' bank accounts and recover the EMI, shall be considered after completion of pleadings.
13. List on 07.02.2023.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J DECEMBER 23, 2022/tp/aa Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:28.12.2022 20:59:59