Delhi High Court dismisses pleas by 123 Supertech homebuyers claiming that EMIs were disbursed sans possession of flats

The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by 123 homebuyers seeking directions to financial institutions not to charge pre-EMIs or full EMIs until Supertech delivers possession of properties to them [Supertech Urban Home Buyers Association (SUHA) foundation v. Union of India]..In a judgment rendered on Tuesday, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav opined that it would not be advisable for the Court to entertain the writ petitions, given that the facts of the cases were purely contractual in nature. “The nature of the relief, as has been quoted in the preceding paragraphs, which are multiple in nature, are apparently not capable of being decided in summary jurisdiction of the writ court,” the judgment stated..The Court clarified that though the petitions were maintainable, when there is an alternate efficacious remedy, the High Court would normally refrain from exercising its extraordinary power. “It is well settled that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution being, in general, discretionary, the High Court may refuse to grant it where there exists an alternate remedy, which is equally efficient and adequate.".Despite this, the judge underscored that the High Court’s powers under Article 226 cannot be circumscribed by strict legal principles.“The power under the Article 226 can be exercised by the High Court to reach injustice wherever it is found,” reads the judgment..The issue arose in relation to flats booked by the petitioners for which they took home loans. According to the petitioners, Supertech was obligated to deliver possession of the flats by December 2019, but had failed to do so.When the builder stopped paying pre-EMIs, the banks started sending demands to the members of the petitioner-association. The petitioners contended that in violation of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) norms, the banks disbursed the amount without taking into consideration that the builder has not made any construction of flats..Supertech argued that the dispute arose out of an agreement and was completely contractual in nature. Therefore, it was not maintainable.Further, it was argued by the builder that since sufficient mechanisms were provided to ensure adequate remedies under the law, a writ court should refrain from exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction..The petitioners, on the other hand, submitted that writ petitions are maintainable even against private sector banks if there exists a dereliction of statutory duty. According to them, writ jurisdiction was very wide and was meant to remedy injustice wherever found. .The extent of powers under writ jurisdiction was examined at length by the High Court, before it was found that the petition was maintainable since the respondents were under a liability to discharge their statutory function..Regardless, the Court was quick to draw a distinction between the concepts of maintainability and entertainability of a writ petition. “However, the question of “entertainability” is entirely within the realm of discretion of the High Courts. As has been noted, writ remedy being discretionary, despite being petition maintainable, the same may not be entertained by the High Court for many reasons.”.Finding that the petitioners had access to alternative remedies, the judge refused to entertain the petitions and dismissed them. .[Read Judgment]