Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/004582

LPA 576/2022

Page 1 of 11

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 01^st NOVEMBER, 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

+

LPA 576/2022 & CM APPL. 44189/2022

SUNIL KUMAR PANDEY AND ANR

..... Appellants

Through:

Mr. Aditya Parolia, Mr. Piyush Singh,

Mr. Akshay Srivastava and Mr. Akhil

Kukreja, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Subhash Tanwar, CGSC with Mr.

Sandeep Mishra, Advocate for UOI.

Mr. Gorang Goyal, Ms. Sangeeta

Sondhi and Mr. Shashwat Roy,

Advocates for R-4 & R-6.

Mr. Kumar Vinayakam Gupta and Mr.

Chandrashekhar

Chakallali,

Advocates for R-5.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD

J U D G M E N T

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.

1.

The instant Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by one, Mr. Sunil

Kumar Pandey and his wife (“Appellant”) seeking setting aside of the Order

dated 21.09.2022 passed by the Ld. Single Judge in W.P.(C) 11865/2022

(“Impugned Order”). Vide the Impugned Order, the Ld. Single Judge

dismissed W.P.(C) 11865/2022, while giving the Petitioner therein i.e the

Digitally Signed

By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR

Signing Date:02.11.2022

15:46:51

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/004582

LPA 576/2022

Page 2 of 11

Appellant herein the liberty to pursue the civil suit instituted by the

Petitioners themselves.

2.

The Appellants have placed on record the following facts to show that

they have been defrauded by one builder, namely, Kunal Structural

Developers & Industries Pvt. Ltd. (“Respondent No. 3/Respondent

Builder”) in collusion with Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited

(“Respondent No. 4”): -

a)The Appellants are homebuyers who had booked residential flats in a

Project namely, „Nikhil Woodland Apartment” situated at Agra, Uttar

Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the “Project”) of Respondent No. 3,

by paying an amount of Rs. 7 Lacs as booking fees.

b)Pursuant thereto, the Appellants were given allotment letters in 2014

and 2015. Thereafter, the Petitioners also executed Builder Buyer

Agreements in favour of the Appellants with respect to their allotted

unit.

c)On 21.01.2015, the Appellants and Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 entered

into a tripartite agreement which recorded that the Appellants had

sought a loan of about 30 Lacs from the Bank i.e Respondent No. 4,

and that Appellants were to pay monthly EMI, and pre-EMI to the

Bank in pursuance thereof.

d)Thereafter, on 25.05.2015, a Memorandum of Understanding

(“MOU”) was entered into between the Appellants and Respondent

Builder. This MOU recorded two things. First, that the Appellants

were to avail of a housing loan from Respondent No. 4. Second, that

upon the disbursement of the loan, Respondent No. 3 would pay a

mutually agreed upon assured return. It also noted that the Builder

Digitally Signed

By:SHAZAAD ZAKIR

Signing Date:02.11.2022

15:46:51

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/004582

LPA 576/2022

Page 3 of 11

would advance to the Appellants the monthly EMI, and Pre-EMI,

which was to be paid by the Appellants to the Bank.

e)However, by 2017, the situation changed. Respondent No. 3 stopped

paying the said EMI to the Appellants. Further, the homebuyers,

including the Appellants, were not handed over their units by this

point as well. The Appellants have also brought to light other

transgressions committed by the Respondent No. 3 includingthat

Respondent No. 3 has sold plots in the Project to multiple buyers.

f)The Appellants have also alleged of collusion between the Respondent

Builder and Bank, which, according to the Appellants is borne out

from the fact that Respondent No. 4 did not carry out the requisite due

diligence before giving loans to prospective home-buyers.

g)Placing these facts on record, the Appellants approached the Hon‟ble

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Sunil Kumar

(CC No. 1402 of 2017).

h)Vide O