Dismissed

Aniket Prakash v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC22 Aug 2024W.P.(C)/11551/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A home-loan borrower facing SARFAESI recovery by his lender after a builder subvention scheme failed sought writ directions restraining adverse action. Noting the DRT had already dismissed his objections and possession had been taken, the Court dismissed the petition as unmaintainable, directing him instead to appeal to the DRAT.

What did the court decide?

None granted; liberty given to petitioner to seek appropriate reliefs before the DRAT without prejudice to parties' rights and contentions.

Aniket Prakash Vs Union of India & Ors. — Banking and Recovery | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~122

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of decision: 22^nd August, 2024

¶4

- W.P.(C) 11551/2024 & CM APPL. 47885/2024

¶5

ANIKET PRAKASH .....Petitioner Through: Ms.Nupur Shukla, Mr.Anirudh Gulati and Mr.Vijay Kumar Shukla, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr.Abhishek Khanna, SPC with Ms.Vandana, GP for UoI. Mr.Sanjeev Singh, Ms.Taniya Bansal, Mr.Mudrakshi, Ms.Meenakshi S, Ms.Sandeepa Bhattacharjee and Mr.Shivam for Respondent TCHFL/R-3.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

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

¶10

The petitioner is invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of directions in the nature of prohibition to restrain respondent No.3/Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited from taking any adverse action against the petitioner on the non-payment of the due EMIs¹ for the subsequent months.

¶11

Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 is present on the advance notice and he has challenged the maintainability of the

¶12

1 Equal Monthly Installments

¶13

Signature Not Verified

¶14

Digitally Signed By:PRAMODW.P. (C) 11551/2024 Page 1 of 4 KUMAR VATS Signing Date:23.08.2024 21:18:28

¶15

present writ petition. He has referred to decisions in Shelly Lal v. UOI² ; Upendra Choudhury v. Bulandshahar Development Authority³ ; and South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew Philip⁴ 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioner took a flat in the project to be brought out by respondent No.4/Oasis Realtech Private Limited (Builder) and home loan/finances were evidently provided by the respondent No.3 in terms of subvention scheme under Tripartite Agreement dated 15.03.2016. It appears that for the non-payment of the outstanding dues due to the respondent No.3, the latter instituted proceedings under SARFAESI Act⁵ for recovery of its dues, which was sought to be assailed by the petitioner being contrary to the decision of RERA⁶ , Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh dated 01.12.2023. Hence, an application was initiated before the Debt Recovery Tribunal [ “DRT” ] inter alia assailing the arbitrary action of respondent No.3 to seek recovery of loan from the petitioner in contravention of deemed subvention payment plan vide allotment letter dated 18.02.2016 and Master Circular dated 01.07.2015 in connection with “Housing Finance, issued by the RBI”.

¶16

It is admitted fact that DRT-II, Delhi vide order dated 18.06.2024 has dismissed the objections raised by the petitioner by passing detailed order and has allowed the respondent No.3 to take over the possession of the subject flat bearing No. Phoenix 1610, 16^th

¶17

2 2021 SCC OnLine SC 222

¶18

3 (2022) 11 SCC 449

¶19

4 2023 SCC OnLine SC 435

¶20

5 Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,

¶21

2002

¶22

6 Real Estate Regulatory Authority

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

W.P. (C) 11551/2024 Page 2 of 4

¶25

Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:23.08.2024 21:18:28

¶26

floor situated at Oasis Grandstand GH-01 TS 01 B, Sector 22 D, Yamuna Expressway, Gautam Budh Nagar (UP).

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner has alluded to the directions passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Himanshu Singh v. Union of India⁷ whereby the home buyers who have entered into “subvention plan scheme” with the builder & the NBFCs have been granted interim relief to the effect that no coercive action shall be taken against them including prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

¶28

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has urged that auction of the flat in question was scheduled today and no bids have been received, and therefore, the relief which has been claimed by the petitioner in the present writ petition has become infructuous insofar as seeking quashing of notice dated 22.08.2024 is concerned. Be that as it may, since the petitioner has already approached DRT, which has passed the order dated 18.06.2024 dismissing their IA No. 2949/2024, it would be appropriate that the petitioner may file an appeal and seek reliefs on the strength of directions dated 15.07.2024 passed by the Supreme Court. This approach is all the more necessitated since the possession of the subject flat has already been taking over by the respondent No.3 and same is sought to be auctioned.

¶29

In view of the above the present writ petition is dismissed as being not maintainable before this Court with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal [“ DRAT ”] for

¶30

7 Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 7649/2023 decided on 15.07.2024

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Digitally Signed By:PRAMODW.P. (C) 11551/2024 Page 3 of 4 KUMAR VATS Signing Date:23.08.2024 21:18:28

¶33

seeking appropriate reliefs. However, this shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.

¶34

The pending application also stands disposed of.

¶35

DHARMESH SHARMA, J.

¶36

AUGUST 22, 2024

¶37

Sadiq

¶38

Signature Not Verified

¶39

W.P. (C) 11551/2024 Page 4 of 4

¶40

Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:23.08.2024 21:18:28

Aniket Prakash v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aniket Prakash v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Mj Bizcrafts LLP (through Its Partner Sh. Rajender Kumar) Vs Central Goods and Services Tax, Delhi South Commissionerate (through Its Commissioner) & Ors.

Rajesh Adhikari and Ors. Vs Sashastra Seema Bal and Anr.

Kunal Khatumaria Vs State (Gnct of Delhi) and Ors.

Shri Nath Kushwaha & Ors. Vs Braham Swaroop Sharma & Ors.

Prayag Polytech Private Limited & Anr. Vs Canara Bank

Central Government Welfare Housing Organization Cgewho Vs Inder Jit Singh Ahuja

Mohd. Rashid Vs Union of India & Anr.

Anil Kumar Sinha and Ors. Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation

Ravi Gupta Vs Delhi Development Authority and Ors.

M/S Air Pro Styles Vs Principal Commissioner of Department of Trade and Taxes, Government of NCT of Delhi

Amit Garg Vs the Secretary (Alt.) Land Building Department and Anr.

Ashish Kumar Vs Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. & Ors.

Vishwanatha Eswaran Vs Union of India & Ors.

Uppal Housing Private Limited Vs Seema Rani & Ors. & Ors.