The Delhi High Court has granted interim protection to a homebuyer of ‘Shubhkamna City’ residential project in Greater Noida West against a loan recovery proceedings initiated by a bank.
While staying the proceedings pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) in Delhi, initiated by Bank of Maharashtra, a Bench of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh said: “In our view, prima facie, it appears that the petitioner [homerbuyer] has been taken for a ride by the builder and it is not the petitioner who has received the loan amount.”
“The bank has disbursed the loan amount to the builder, and in these circumstances, it remains to be seen as to whether or not the petitioner is at all liable,” the Bench said.
The court’s direction came on a plea by Hridesh Kumar Pathak, who booked a unit in the ‘Shubhkamna City’ project developed by Shubhkamna Buildtech Private Limited in 2016. As per the buyer builder agreement executed in October 2016, the possession of the flat was to be delivered within 45 months, including a grace period of six months, after commencement of construction, without specifying the date of start of construction.
Flats not constructed
Advocate Anshul Gupta, representing Mr. Pathak, submitted that the homebuyer and the builder entered into and executed a tripartite agreement in January 2017 with Bank of Maharashtra for the sanction of loan amounting to ₹32.5 lakh in order to finance the purchase of the flat. The bank has disbursed a total amount of ₹27,63,000 towards the builder. However, the flats have not been constructed.
In 2018, the Corporate Insolvency Resolution process was initiated against the builder by the National Company Law Tribunal, after which a moratorium period was put into effect under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016.
Advocate Gupta further submitted a resolution plan, approved with 87.60% voting majority, is pending for approval before the NCLT.
Taking note of the submission, the court said, “The resolution plan appears to be on force and there would be no justification to subject the petitioner to the ongoing proceedings before the DRT at this stage.” It stayed the proceedings before the DRT till further orders.
