Ramji Lal Construction Pvt Ltd v. Union Of India And ORS

$~14.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RAMJI LAL CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Ajay Dabas, Adv.

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through:

Ms. Abha Malhotra and Mr. Gaurang Bindra, Advs. for R-1.

Ms. Swati Setia, Adv. for R-3.

Mr. Ateev Mathur, Adv. for R-4.

Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Adv. for R-5.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

O R D E R

% 09.03.2016 1.

The petition (i) seeks a mandamus to the respondent no.1 Union of India (UOI), respondent no.2 Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) and respondent no.3 Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to regulate the unfair and illegal practice of members of respondent no.4 Indian Banking Association executing contracts with blank spaces and without obtaining counter signature of the borrower and filling up the blank spaces at a later stage; (ii) seeks mandamus to the respondent no.1 UOI, respondent no.2 GNCTD and respondent no.3 RBI to enforce Money Lenders Act strictly, read with Banking Regulations Act so as to prevent any suicidal attempt by the borrowers; (iii) seeks to restrain the respondent no.5 Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. (Indiabulls) from enforcing recovery notice and demand of Rs. 38 lacs including penalty of pre-payment charges of Rs.5 lacs and interest at 21% to 25% per annum against the petitioner; and, (iv) seeking mandamus

to the respondent no.5 Indiabulls to refund the excess payment of Rs.50 lacs received from the petitioner.

2.

The petition came up first before this Court on 1st August, 2012 when the counsel for the petitioner limited the challenge in the writ petition to the rate of interest charged by the respondent no.5 Indiabulls on the ground that it is usurious and in contravention of the provisions of Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1944.

3.

The petition since then has been pending awaiting completion of pleadings. Vide order dated 30th July, 2014 the respondent no.4 Indian Banking Association was deleted and the respondent no.5 Indiabulls made the respondent no.4 and National Housing Bank impleaded as respondent no.5.

4.

The counsel for the respondent no.5 National Housing Bank (NHB) seeks adjournment to file counter affidavit.

5.

It has however been enquired from the counsel for the petitioner whether any proceedings have been initiated by the respondent no.4 Indiabulls against the petitioner for recovery of the amounts claimed by the respondent no.4 Indiabulls to be due from the petitioner. 6.

It is informed that arbitration proceedings initiated by the respondent no.4 Indiabulls are pending and the petitioner in contesting to the arbitration proceedings has taken the same defences to which this petition has been confined as aforesaid.

7.

In the circumstances, it has been enquired from the counsel for the petitioner as to how the same question can be subject matter of adjudication

before two fora i.e. in arbitration proceedings and in this writ petition and whether not the same invites the possibility of inconsistent findings, especially when it is not the case of the petitioner that the legal issues to which this petition has been confined cannot be adjudicated in arbitration. 8.

The counsel for the respondent no.4 Indiabulls states that he has in the counter affidavit filed already taken all the said pleas but notwithstanding the same the petition has remained pending for the last four years. 9.

The counsel for the respondent no.3 RBI states that the stand of the respondent no.3 RBI is that the respondent no.4 Indiabulls is a Housing Finance Institution is controlled not by the respondent no.3 RBI but controlled by NHB and NHB for this reason only was impleaded as a respondent.

10.

The counsel for the respondent no.5 NHB states that she has no instructions.

11.

The counsel for the petitioner admits possibility of conflicting decision.

12.

In this view of the matter, the petition is disposed of leaving the pleas as urged herein open to the petitioner in the arbitration proceedings and in any further proceedings arising therefrom.

No costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

MARCH 09, 2016 'pp'..