$~79 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 9^th July, 2024 + W.P.(C) 1411/2024 & CM APPL. 37785/2024 KARAN AHUJA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Manish Verma & Mohd.

Faizan Chaudhary, Advs.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Amrita Singh & Mr. Ankit Gupta, Advs. for R2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA DHARMESH SHARMA, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner 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.2/HDFC, [Housing Development Finance Corporation] Bank Limited, 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.2-bank not to charge the Pre-EMIs or full EMIs from the Petitioner;

iii. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus/Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, directing the Respondent No.2-bank to cease the reduction of the Petitioner‟s CIBIL Score and to restore it to its state/stage prior to the demand for the Pre-EMI from the Petitioner.

iv. Pass an appropriate order or directions to Respondent No.1 to Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMWODP (C) 1411/2024 Page 1 of 8 frame guidelines and monitoring system were the citizens/aggrieved people submitting their objections can be monitored transparent and time bound manner: and /or v. 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 petitioner were allotted a residential unit bearing No. R1450N469A/Flat #N469 in the project “Hill Town” to be developed by Supertech Township Project Limited, [Supertech], 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. 62,30,000/-. Pursuant thereto, an MoU, [Memorandum of Understanding] dated 24.12.2015 was executed, whereby the Supertech undertook to pay the pre-EMI over the loan for a period of 24 months. In case of a delay in handing over of possession beyond 24 months, it was stipulated that Supertech shall continue to pay the same.

3. It is stated that Supertech had breached clause (b)⁴ of the MoU dated 24.12.2015; and that petitioners approached the respondent No.2 and tried to explain the situation, asserting that they were rather the victims and the petitioner should not be required to make any further payments towards allotment. Later, they came to know that NCLT5 proceedings had been initiated against Supertech.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has vehemently urged

4 That the period of this subvention scheme, as approved by HDFC Limited is till 24 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 24 months. The payment of Pre EMI shall continue till offer of possession with regard to the booked flat is issued to the Buyer.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMWODP (C) 1411/2024 Page 2 of 8 that the present Writ Petition is not maintainable, for which reliance is placed on the decisions in Sunil Kumar Pandey v. Union of India, [LPA 576/2022 dated 01.11.2022] Phoenix ARC Private Limited v. Vishwa Bharti Vidya Mandir, [Civil Appeal Nos. 257-259 of 2022 dated 12.01.2022] United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, [MANU/SC/0541/2010]; and Supertech Urban Home Buyers Association (SUBA) Foundation v. UOI, [W.P.(C) 9491/2020 dated 14.03.2023]

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