In a major relief for home buyers who have not got possession of their flats across the National Capital Region (NCR), the Supreme Court has directed that no coercive action shall be taken against them by banks, financial institutions or builders over EMI payment and no cheque bounce cases will be entertained against them.
The top court was hearing a batch of pleas against an order of the Delhi High Court which had dismissed petitions by several home buyers seeking directions to banks and financial institutions to not charge Equated Monthly Instalment (EMI) till the real estate developers have delivered the possession of their flats.
Aggrieved by the order, the home buyers moved the top court which agreed to examine the issue and sought response from the parties involved.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan issued notices to the Centre, banks and others on the pleas filed against the high court order dated March 14, 2023.
"In the meantime, there shall be interim stay in all the matters, to the effect that no coercive action including complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 shall be entertained on behalf of the Banks/Financial Institutions or Builders/Developers against the home buyers.
"Most of the financial institution(s)/Bank(s) have filed their counter affidavit(s). For those who are yet to file their counter affidavit(s), a last opportunity is granted to do the needful within two weeks," the bench said in its July 15 order.
The matter has been posted for hearing before the top court on September 27.
The home buyers, in their petition filed before the top court, said they were victims of illegal disbursal of loan by the bank directly into the account of the builder in violation of RBI guidelines.
The high court in its order had refused to entertain the writ petitions on the ground that the petitioners have alternative remedies under various laws such as the Consumer Protection Act, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act.
The petitioners before the high court included Supertech Urban Home Buyers Association (SUHA) Foundation, consisting of 123 home buyers, and other similarly placed people who have taken home loans from banks and financial institutions on the basis of subvention scheme.
Under the scheme, the sanctioned loan amount was disbursed directly to the builder who was supposed to pay the pre-EMIs or full EMIs.
However, in the present case, the builders did not fulfil their obligation of delivering the possession and did not pay EMIs but the banks demanded re-payment from the borrowers.
The high court had noted that the cases before it are "purely contractual in nature" and some of the agreements in question even provide for arbitration between the parties, and proceedings before other tribunals in some instances are already pending.
"There are various statutes such as RERA Act, Consumer Protection Act, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, SARFAESI Act etc., where the petitioners can raise their grievances. It would not be advisable to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution under the facts of the present cases," the high court had said.
Discover the latest Business News, Sensex, and Nifty updates. Obtain Personal Finance insights, tax queries, and expert opinions on Moneycontrol or download the Moneycontrol App to stay updated!
