DHARMESH SHARMA, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioners are invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of an appropriate writ, directions, or orders to the respondent No.3/IHFL1 thereby seeking following reliefs:

“i.

Allow the present Writ Petition;

ii.

Issue a Writ in the nature of the Mandamus/Certiorari or any other writ directing the Respondent No.3 and 4 not to charge the Pre-EMIs or full EMIs from the Petitioners;

iii.

Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus/Certiorari or any

1 Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited

other appropriate writ, directing the Respondent No.3-IHFL to cease the reduction of the Petitioners CIBIL Score‟s and to restore it to its state/stage prior to the demand for the Pre-EMI/EMI from the Petitioners.

iv.

Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus/Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, directing the Respondent No.4 ACRE to cease its operations and thereby staying the notices whatsoever under SARFAESI Act, 2002;

v.

Pass an appropriate order or directions to Respondent No.1 to framed guidelines and monitoring system were the citizens/aggrieved people submitting their objections can be monitored transparent and time bound manner; and/or vi.

Pass order(s) as this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present case.”

2. Shorn off unnecessary details, the aforesaid reliefs are sought stating that the petitioners were allotted a residential unit bearing No. T5/1504 in the project “ Hill Town ” to be developed by the respondent No.2 situated at Sector -2, Sohna Road, Gurgaon, State of Haryana, for which they also availed of a housing loan from respondent No.2 for an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/-. Pursuant thereto, an MoU2 dated 14.05.2015 was executed, whereby the respondent No.2/Builder3 undertook to pay the pre-EMI on the loan for a period of 36 months.

In case of a delay in handing over of possession beyond 36 months, it was stipulated that respondent No.2 shall continue to pay the same.

3. It is stated that respondent No. 2 had breached Clause (b)4 of the MoU dated 14.05.2015; and that petitioners approached the 4 That the tenure of this subvention scheme, as approved by India bulls Housing Finance Limited is 36th months. The Developer expects to offer possession of the booked unit to the Buyer by that time. However if due to any reason, the possession offer of the booked unit gets delayed, then the Developer undertakes to pay the Pre EMI only to the Buyer even after 36th months. The payment of Pre EMI shall continue till offer of possession with regard to the booked flat is issued to the Buyer.

2 Memorandum of Understanding
3 Supertech Township Project Limited

respondent No.3 and tried to explain the situation, asserting that they were rather the victims and the petitioners should not be required to make any further payments towards allotment. Later, they came to know that NCLT5 proceedings had been initiated against the builder.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has vehemently urged that the present Writ Petition is not maintainable, for which reliance is placed on the decisions in Sunil Kumar Pandey v. Union of India 6 ;

Phoenix ARC Private Limited v. Vishwa Bharti Vidya Mandir 7 ;

United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon 8 ; and Supertech Urban Home Buyers Association (SUBA) Foundation v. UOI 9 .

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners sought an accommodation requesting for some more time to address arguments. It is apparent that the learned counsel for the petitioners is just buying time. On the last day of hearing, he was specifically told to come prepared with arguments.

6. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the present Writ Petition is not maintainable. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed a detailed order in a bunch of matters in Superte