Delhi HC Rejects Writ Petition Of 123 Homebuyers Stating That Cases Were Purely Contractual In Nature

A group of 123 homebuyers had filed writ petitions in the Delhi High Court to seek relief from financial institutions charging pre-EMIs or full EMIs until Supertech delivers possession of their properties. However, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav recently dismissed the petitions, stating that since the cases were purely contractual in nature, it would not be appropriate for the Court to intervene. The Court clarified that while the petitions were valid, the High Court generally refrains from using its extraordinary power when there is an alternate effective solution available.

The problem came up when the people who filed the petition booked flats and took out home loans. They claimed that Supertech had promised to deliver possession of the flats by December 2019, but didn't follow through. When Supertech stopped paying pre-EMIs, the banks began sending demands to the members of the petitioner association. The petitioners argued that the banks had violated Reserve Bank of India (RBI) norms by disbursing the amount without considering that the builder had not made any progress on constructing the flats.

According to Supertech, the disagreement was based on an agreement and entirely contractual in nature, making it invalid. The builder further argued that since there were already sufficient mechanisms in place to provide appropriate remedies under the law, a writ court didn't need to intervene using its extraordinary jurisdiction.

The petitioners stated that writ petitions could be filed against private sector banks if they were failing to fulfill their statutory duty. They believed that writ jurisdiction had a broad scope and was intended to correct any injustice wherever it may occur.

However, the Court distinguished between the maintainability and accountability of a writ petition before deciding that the petition was valid since the respondents were obligated to fulfill their statutory function.

However, the Court made it clear that there was a difference between the concepts of maintainability and accountability of a writ petition. Despite finding the petition valid, the judge refused to entertain it and dismissed it because the petitioners had other options available to them.