ORDER

1.      Heard Ms. Shilpa Gamnani, Advocate and other advocates in all the above complaints, for the complainants, Ms. Chetna Bhalla, Advocate, for opposite party-1 and Mr. S.B. Prabhavalkar, Advocate, for opposite parties-2 and 3. 

2.      In above complaints, same issues of facts and law have been raised against same opposite parties as such all the complaints are decided by a common judgment. For appreciating the controversy, facts of CC/63/2020 are mentioned. Relevant facts in above complaints are given in the chart below:-

3.      Akshay Gupta and Garima Mishra have filed CC/63/2020 for quashing Loan Recall Notice dated 19.09.2019, issued by ICICI Bank Limited (opposite party-1) and any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case.

4.      The complainants stated that ICICI Bank Limited (opposite party-1) (the bank) was a banking company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of providing loans against property, home loans, financial assistance etc. to the general public. Rajesh Lifespaces Private Limited and Rajsanket Realty Limited (opposite parties-2 and 3) (the builders) were the companies, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in business of development and construction of housing project and selling its unit to the prospective buyers. The builders launched a group housing project in the name of “Raj Infinia”, at CTS No.307/66/A, village Valnai, Taluqa Borivali, Mumbai, in 2013 and made wide publicity of its amenities and facilities. They advertised that the flats could be purchased under “subvention scheme”. On inquiry, Mr. Rananjay Singh, the authorised representatives of the builders and Mr. Gaurav Wig, an officer of the bank, informed that the project was jointly offered by the bank and the builders and as per “subvention scheme”, 20% of sale consideration had to pay by the buyer and 80% by the bank; and the builders would pay EMI on the bank loan, for a period of 36 months or till offer of possession, whichever was later. “Subvention scheme” was available only on the home loan taken from the bank. Mr. Afsar Sheikh, Sr. Branch Sales Manager-Mortgages of the bank, vide email dated 14.06.2013, informed that the bank was funding the project “Raj Infinia” in the ratio of 80:20. On inquiry, Mr. Vishal Doshi informed that possession would be delivered in the year 2016. The builders executed an agreement for sale dated 17.08.2013, in favour of the complainants, stating in clause-9 that interest on the bank loan would be borne by the builder till handover of the possession. Allured with “subvention scheme”, the complainants applied for home loan. The bank sanctioned Rs.13078217/- on 21.08.2013 as home loan. The bank asked to sign blank documents including standard format of loan agreement (Facility Agreement) dated 21.08.2013. In clauses-8 and 9 of this agreement (relating to due date of commencement of EMI and payment of first EMI), “PD” (Possession Date) were mentioned. The bank issued letter dated 07.09.2013, for disbursing Rs.12334541/- to the builders and directly gave that amount to the builders. Reserve Bank of India, vide Circular DBOD.BP.BC. No.51/08.12.015/2013-14 dated 03.09.2013, issued advisory to all the schedule commercial banks that housing loans to individuals should be closely linked to the stages of construction of the housing project as the banks run disproportionately higher exposures with concomitant risks of diversion of funds under 80:20 or 75:25 schemes. Opposite party-3 gave an email dated 30.05.2019, stating their inability to pay EMI on account to their poor financial condition. The bank issued a letter to the complainants dated 13.07.2019 that EMI of Rs.312070/- was due for more than 60 days till 01.07.2019 and required the complainants to pay it within 7 days.  The builders did not abide with the timelines as mentioned in agreement. The bank issued Loan Recall Notice dated 19.09.2019 to the complaina