IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.
Supertech Urban Home Buyers Association (Suha) Foundation Through Its Authorized Representatives - Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India, (Ministry Of Housing And Urban Affairs), Through Its Standing Counsel, Nirman Bhawan, Maulana Azad Road, New Delhi-110011 and Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No.9491 Of 2020 & CM No. No.30535 Of 2020 With W.P.(C) 14620/2022, W.P.(C) 1468/2023, W.P.(C) 1632/2023, W.P.(C) 14683/2022, W.P.(C) 15237/2022, W.P.(C) 17347/2022, W.P.(C) 719/2023, W.P.(C) 749/2023, W.P.(C) 859/2023, W.P.(C) 891/2023, W.P.(C) 953/2023, W.P.(C) 1089/2023, W.P.(C) 1122/2023, W.P.(C) 1165/2023, W.P.(C) 1219/2023, W.P.(C) 1313/2023, W.P.(C) 14589/2022, W.P.(C) 17500/2022, W.P.(C) 1038/2023, W.P.(C) 1941/2023, W.P.(C) 7443/2022, W.P.(C) 5192/2022, W.P.(C) 8972/2022, CONT.CAS(C) 939/2022, W.P.(C) 11063/2022, W.P.(C) 8785/2022, CONT.CAS(C) 1207/2022, W.P.(C) 9493/2020, W.P.(C) 1144/2021, W.P.(C) 1149/2021, W.P.(C) 1225/2021, W.P.(C) 1377/2021, W.P.(C) 5870/2021, W.P.(C) 5879/2021, W.P.(C) 7749/2021, W.P.(C) 7766/2021, W.P.(C) 7956/2021, 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) 14070/2021, W.P.(C) 14079/2021, W.P.(C) 14359/2021, W.P.(C) 14859/2021, W.P.(C) 1604/2022, W.P.(C) 1717/2022, W.P.(C) 2927/2022, W.P.(C) 2946/2022, W.P.(C) 3084/2022, W.P.(C) 3107/2022, W.P.(C) 3455/2022, W.P.(C) 3513/2022, W.P.(C) 4287/2022, W.P.(C) 4526/2022, W.P.(C) 4989/2022, W.P.(C) 5101/2022, W.P.(C) 5389/2022, W.P.(C) 5546/2022, W.P.(C) 5567/2022, W.P.(C) 5934/2022, W.P.(C) 6006/2022, W.P.(C) 6104/2022, W.P.(C) 6142/2022, W.P.(C) 6459/2022, W.P.(C) 6504/2022, W.P.(C) 6508/2022, W.P.(C) 6512/2022, W.P.(C) 6582/2022, W.P.(C) 6594/2022, W.P.(C) 6608/2022, W.P.(C) 6713/2022, W.P.(C) 6732/2022, W.P.(C) 6831/2022, W.P.(C) 7109/2022, W.P.(C) 7126/2022, W.P.(C) 7128/2022, W.P.(C) 7129/2022, W.P.(C) 7154/2022, W.P.(C) 7165/2022, W.P.(C) 7237/2022, W.P.(C) 7582/2022, W.P.(C) 7798/2022, W.P.(C) 7812/2022, W.P.(C) 7828/2022, W.P.(C) 7894/2022, W.P.(C) 7918/2022, W.P.(C) 8168/2022, W.P.(C) 8274/2022, W.P.(C) 8526/2022, W.P.(C) 8604/2022, W.P.(C) 8932/2022, W.P.(C) 8971/2022, W.P.(C) 8989/2022, W.P.(C) 9101/2022, W.P.(C) 11983/2022, W.P.(C) 16039/2022, W.P.(C) 9114/2022, W.P.(C) 9143/2022, W.P.(C) 9180/2022, W.P.(C) 9104/2022, W.P.(C) 9110/2022, W.P.(C) 9116/2022, W.P.(C) 9127/2022, W.P.(C) 9178/2022, W.P.(C) 9207/2022, W.P.(C) 9224/2022, W.P.(C) 9273/2022, W.P.(C) 9327/2022, W.P.(C) 9330/2022, W.P.(C) 9357/2022, W.P.(C) 9423/2022, W.P.(C) 9465/2022, W.P.(C) 9919/2022, W.P.(C) 10122/2022, W.P.(C) 10140/2022, W.P.(C) 10211/2022, W.P.(C) 10214/2022, W.P.(C) 10299/2022, W.P.(C) 10346/2022, W.P.(C) 10348/2022, W.P.(C) 10379/2022, W.P.(C) 10411/2022, W.P.(C) 10340/2022, W.P.(C) 10351/2022, W.P.(C) 10394/2022, W.P.(C) 10399/2022, W.P.(C) 10401/2022, W.P.(C) 10402/2022, W.P.(C) 10405/2022, W.P.(C) 10413/2022, W.P.(C) 10414/2022, W.P.(C) 10415/2022, W.P.(C) 10419/2022, W.P.(C) 10429/2022, W.P.(C) 10443/2022, W.P.(C) 10470/2022, W.P.(C) 10481/2022, W.P.(C) 10506/2022, W.P.(C) 11144/2022, W.P.(C) 10524/2022, W.P.(C) 10686/2022, W.P.(C) 10772/2022, W.P.(C) 10773/2022, W.P.(C) 10803/2022, W.P.(C) 10824/2022, W.P.(C) 11067/2022, W.P.(C) 11161/2022, W.P.(C) 11209/2022, W.P.(C) 11215/2022, W.P.(C) 11239/2022, W.P.(C) 11354/2022, W.P.(C) 11362/2022, W.P.(C) 11431/2022, W.P.(C) 11586/2022, W.P.(C) 11628/2022, W.P.(C) 11670/2022, W.P.(C) 11756/2022, W.P.(C) 11810/2022, W.P.(C) 11822/2022, W.P.(C) 12372/2022, W.P.(C) 12392/2022, W.P.(C) 12520/2022, W.P.(C) 12593/2022, W.P.(C) 12612/2022, W.P.(C) 12704/2022, W.P.(C) 12863/2022, W.P.(C) 13006/2022, W.P.(C) 13063/2022, W.P.(C) 13074/2022, W.P.(C) 13127/2022, W.P.(C) 13179/2022, W.P.(C) 13362/2022, W.P.(C) 13365/2022, W.P.(C) 13431/2022, W.P.(C) 13595/2022, W.P.(C) 13710/2022, W.P.(C) 13718/2022, W.P.(C) 13823/2022, W.P.(C) 13872/2022, W.P.(C) 13915/2022, W.P.(C) 13929/2022, W.P.(C) 14490/2022, W.P.(C) 14654/2022, W.P.(C) 14938/2022, W.P.(C) 15190/2022, W.P.(C) 15244/2022, W.P.(C) 15353/2022, W.P.(C) 15358/2022, W.P.(C) 15523/2022, W.P.(C) 15535/2022, W.P.(C) 15451/2022, W.P.(C) 15677/2022, W.P.(C) 15698/2022, W.P.(C) 15750/2022, W.P.(C) 16256/2022, W.P.(C) 16570/2022, W.P.(C) 16608/2022, W.P.(C) 16654/2022, W.P.(C) 16859/2022, W.P.(C) 16989/2022, W.P.(C) 17024/2022, W.P.(C) 17034/2022, W.P.(C) 17387/2022, W.P.(C) 17469/2022, W.P.(C) 17528/2022, W.P.(C) 17555/2022, W.P.(C) 17588/2022, W.P.(C) 28/2023, W.P.(C) 30/2023, W.P.(C) 47/2023, W.P.(C) 62/2023, W.P.(C) 72/2023, W.P.(C) 74/2023, W.P.(C) 84/2023, W.P.(C) 99/2023, W.P.(C) 176/2023, W.P.(C) 253/2023, W.P.(C) 318/2023, W.P.(C) 372/2023, W.P.(C) 431/2023, W.P.(C) 454/2023, W.P.(C) 460/2023, W.P.(C) 548/2023, W.P.(C) 578/2023, W.P.(C) 1889/2023, W.P.(C) 7131/2022, W.P.(C) 7177/2022 and W.P.(C) 2012/2023.
Decided On : 14-03-2023
Writ petitions filed by homebuyers seeking relief against respondent banks/financial institutions for not charging pre-EMIs or full EMIs till possession is delivered, refund of pre-EMIs/full EMIs paid by petitioners, framing of guidelines to regulate transactions pertaining to subvention schemes, and other related prayers, were dismissed as not maintainable and not entertainable.
Fact of the Case:
Homebuyers entered into agreements with respondent-builder for purchase of residential units in a project. The builder entered into tripartite agreements with homebuyers and respondent banks/financial institutions, whereby the banks/financial institutions disbursed the sanctioned amount to the builder directly and the homebuyers were supposed to pay pre-EMIs or full EMIs to the banks/financial institutions. The builder defaulted in payments, leading to homebuyers raising grievances. The homebuyers filed writ petitions seeking various reliefs, including a direction to the banks/financial institutions not to charge pre-EMIs or full EMIs till possession is delivered, refund of pre-EMIs/full EMIs paid by them, and framing of guidelines to regulate transactions pertaining to subvention schemes.
Finding of the Court:
1. The writ petitions were maintainable against the respondent banks/financial institutions as they were under a liability to discharge their function under the statute and were compelled to perform their statutory function. 2. However, the writ petitions were not entertainable as the rights claimed by the petitioners were flowing from the respective agreements only, complex and disputed questions of facts were involved, the parties were not remediless, alternative forums were already in place, and any interference by the writ court would amount to usurpation of powers vested with the respective forums.
Issues: 1. Whether the writ petitions were maintainable against the respondent banks/financial institutions. 2. Whether the writ petitions were entertainable.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Maintainability of Writ Petitions: a) The banks/financial institutions were governed by various statutes and were under a liability to discharge their function under the statute. b) The writ petitions were maintainable as the respondents were under a liability to discharge their function under the statute and were compelled to perform their statutory function. 2. Entertainability of Writ Petitions: a) The rights claimed by the petitioners were flowing from the respective agreements only. b) Complex and disputed questions of facts were involved. c) The parties were not remediless as alternative forums were already in place. d) Any interference by the writ court would amount to usurpation of powers vested with the respective forums.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed as not maintainable and not entertainable.
JUDGMENT :
1. This batch of petitions, involving similar issues, is being decided by this common order.
2. The petition bearing No. W.P.(C) 9491/2020 is being treated as a lead matter, therefore, for the sake of convenience, the facts and pleadings are being referred therefrom. However, facts of individual cases would be referred, wherever so required.
3. In all these petitions, the reliefs claimed are almost similar except for small variations. The dominant relief claimed is to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus/certiorari or any other writ directing the respondent banks/financial institutions not to charge the pre-EMIs or full EMIs from the petitioners/alike homebuyers. It is also prayed that the respondent banks/financial institutions be directed not to charge the pre-EMIs/full EMIs till the possession is not delivered by the respondents builder/alike real estate developers to the petitioners with respect to their respective flats. For the sake of clarity prayer clause from the lead writ petition i.e. W.P. (C) 9491/2020 is being reproduced as under: -
“i. Allow the present Petition;
ii. Issue a Writ in the nature of the Mandamus/Certiorari or any other writ directing the Respondent banks/Financial Institutions to not charge the Pre-EMIs or full EMIs from the Petitioners/alike homebuyers;
iii. Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus/Certiorari or any other writ directing the Respondent Banks/Financial Institutions to charge all the Pre-EMIs/full EMIs till the possession is not delivered from the Respondent builder/alike real estate developers;
iv. Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus/Certiorari or any other writ directing the Respondent Banks/Financial Institutions to refund the Pre-EMIs/full EMIs paid by the Petitioners to the Petitioners and recover the same from the Respondent builder herein;
v. Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus/Certiorari or any other writ directing the Respondent state to frame clear and strict guidelines to regulate the transactions pertaining to the subvention scheme prevalent in the real estate sectors;
vi. Issue guidelines to the effect that any financial institution including banks/Financial Institutions ought not to auction the property of any real estate builder without the consent of the homebuyers who have invested their hard money and also of the Respondent state authorities;
vii. Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus/Certiorari or any other writ directing the Respondent state to make sure that the Petitioners are provided their respective flats in a time bound manner;
viii. Pass an appropriate order or direction against Respondent No 2 for initiating strict action against Respondent banks/Financial Institutions for violating the rules and regulations laid down by Respondent No 2 as a regulator for the banking sector; and/or
ix. Pass appropriate guidelines to be followed by all the Nationalized and Private Banks/Financial Institutions including the Respondent banks/Financial Institutions herein for release/disbursal of funds to Real Estate Companies in case of loans sanctioned against any real estate project so that such acts are not repeated in future; and/or
x. Pass an appropriate order or direction appointing a committee of experts to examine the grounds raised by the Petitioner in their representation submitted to the Respondent(s) with a direction to submit a report in a time bound manner; and/or
xi. Pass an appropriate order or directions to the Respondent No. 1 to frame guidelines and monitoring system where the citizens/aggrieved people submitting their objections can be monitored in a transparent and time bound manner; and/or
xii. Pass order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present case."
4. After issuance of notice in the lead matter and in some of the other writ petitions, the respondents have filed their objections/counter affidavits. On 31.01.2022
Orix Auto Finance (India) Ltd. v. Jagmander Singh
Orissa State Financial Corpn. v. Narsingh Ch. Nayak
Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. Reserve Bank of India
Central Bank of India v. Ravindra & Ors.
Bikram Chatterji & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Supertech Limited v. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association & Ors. (2021) 10 SCC 1
Life Corporation of India v. Escorts Ltd.
Karnataka State Forest Industries v. Indian Rocks
Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India
L.I.C. of India & Anr. v. Consumer Education & Research Centre & Ors.
Federal Bank Limited (supra), CBI v. Ramesh Gelli
A.V. Venkateswaran v. R.S. Wadhwani & Anr.
D.D. Suri v. A.K. Barren & Ors.
ABL International v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd and Ors.
Rakesh Verma v. UOI Sardar Associate & Ors. v. Punjab and Sind Bank & Ors.
Supriyo Basu Ors. v. West Bengal Housing board and Ors.
U.P. State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. v. Chandra Bhan Dubey and Ors.
KK Saksena v. International Commission on Irrigations and Drainage
Mathew Varghese v. M. Amrita Kumar and Ors.
Ram Kishun and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
Maharashtra Chess Associations v. Union of India and Ors.
Minerva Mills v. Union of India
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India
U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Kamal Swaroop Tondon
A. Venkataraman v. Ram Chandra Sobvraj Vadhwani
Vikram Chatterjee and Ors. v. Union of India
P. Mohanraj & Ors. v. M/s. Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd.
State of U.P. & Ors. v. Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd.
Bareilly Development Authority v. Ajay Pal Singh
National Highway Authority of India v. Ganga Enterprises & Anr.
State of Gujarat & Ors. v. Meghji Pethraj Shah Charitable Trust
K.K. Saksena v. International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage & Ors.
State of Bihar and Ors. v. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd.
V.K. Naswa v. Home Secretary, UOI and Ors.
Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh
AI
Courts should yield to the wisdom of policy makers and refrain from exercising powers of judicial review in matters of economic policy.
Article 226 of our Constitution confers extraordinary jurisdiction on the High Courts not only to issue prerogative writs for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights but also for ‘any other purpose’ it....
The court established that no writ could be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution to compel the bank to remedy a breach of contract in a non-statutory contract, unless there was a public inter....
The court affirmed that banks and housing finance companies must link loan disbursement to construction stages, thus protecting home buyers from liability for the developers' defaults.
The availability of alternative remedies under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Act, 2002 renders a writ petition not maintainable, especially aga....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of exhaustion of statutory remedies and the limited circumstances under which the High Court can exercise its extraordinary jurisdict....
The High Court's discretionary powers under Article 226 should not be invoked when sufficient alternate remedies are available, emphasizing the principle of exhaustion of remedies in civil litigation....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.