AKSHAY GUPTA & ANR. V. ICICI BANK LIMITED & 2 ORS.

C-302, Gundecha Gardens, C-Wing, Bombay Gas Company, Lal
Baug,
2. GARIMA MISHRA
C-302, Gundecha Gardens, C-Wing, Bombay Gas Company, Lal
Baug,
Versus

Registered Office at Landmark, Race Course Circle,
Gujarat
2. RAJESH LIFESPACES PVT. LTD.
139, Seksaria Chambers, Second Floor, Nagindas Master Road,
Fort,
Maharashtra
3. RAJSANKET REALTY LTD.
(Earlier Known as Sanket International Ltd.), 139, Seksaria
Chambers, Second Floor, Nagindas Master Road, Fort,
Maharashtra

Case No: CONSUMER CASE NO. 63 OF 2020

Versus

Vadodara, -390007,
Gujarat
2. Rajesh Lifespaces Private Limited,
139, Seksaria Chambers, Second Floor, Nagindas Master Road,
Fort,
Mumbai-400023
MAHARASHTRA
3. Rajsanket Realty Ltd.

(Earlier Known As Sanket Internation Ltd. 139, Seksaria
Chambers, Second Floor, nagindas Master Road, Fort,
Mumbai-400023
MAHARASHTRA

Mumbai-400053

Case No: CONSUMER CASE NO. 172 OF 2020

Versus

Case No: CONSUMER CASE NO. 174 OF 2020

Versus

Case No: CONSUMER CASE NO. 175 OF 2020

Versus

Case No: CONSUMER CASE NO. 177 OF 2020

Versus

OFFICE AT LANDMARK, RACE3 COURSE
CIRCLE,VADODARA-390007, GUJARAT
2. RAJESH LIFESPACES PRIVATE LIMITED
139, SEKSARIA CHAMBERS SECOND FLOOR, NAGINDAS
MASTER ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI-400023, MAHARASHTRA
3. RAJSANKET REALTY LTD.
139, SEKSARIA CHAMBERS SECOND FLOOR, NAGINDAS
MASTER ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI-400023, MAHARASHTRA

Case No: CONSUMER CASE NO. 255 OF 2020

1. NAGRAJ MAHADEV SHETTI

Versus

OFFICE AT LANDMARK, RACE COURSE CIRCLE,
VADODARA-390007, GUJARAT

2. RAJESH LIFESPACES PRIVATE LIMITED
139, SEKSARIA CHAMBERS, SECOND FLOOR, NAGINDAS
MASTER ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI-400023, MAHARASHTRA
3. RAJSANKET REALTY LTD.
(EARLIER KNOWN AS SANKET INTERNATIONAL
LTD.)139, SEKSARIA

Case No: CONSUMER CASE NO. 64 OF 2020

Date of Judgement: 02 Jan 2023

Judges:

For the Complainant : Ms. Shilpa Gamnani, Advocate
For the Opp.Party : For Opposite-Party-1 : Ms. Chetna Bhalla, Advocate Mr. Kartik Bhalla, Advocate
Facts
Court’s Opinions
Arguments by Complainants
Arguments by Opposite Parties
Sections
Referred Laws
RBI Circular DBOD.BP.BC.No.51/08.12.015/2013-14 dated 03.09.2013

Download Court Copy: https://dreamlaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/1-4.pdf

Full Text of Judgment:

1. Heard Ms. Shilpa Gamnani, Advocate and other advocates in all the above complaints, for the complainants, Ms. Chetna Bhalla, Advocate, for opposite party-1 and Mr. S.B. Prabhavalkar, Advocate, for opposite parties-2 and 3.
2. In above complaints, same issues of facts and law have been raised against same opposite parties as such all the complaints are decided by a common judgment. For appreciating the controversy, facts of CC/63/2020 are mentioned. Relevant facts in above complaints are given in the chart below:-

CC NO.	Name of the complainant	Flat No.	Date of sanction of Loan	Date of Disbursement	Amount of Loan
CC/63/2020	Akshay Gupta & Garima Mishra	Flat No.410, BWing, 4th floor, Raj Infinia	21.08.2013	30.08.2013	Rs.12334541/-
CC/64/2020	Nagraj Mahadev Shetti	Flat No.1008,10th floor, B- Wing Raj Infinia,	19.07.2013	24.07.2013	Rs.12799364/-
CC/172/2020	Pritam Kumar Patnaik & Bandita Panda	Flat No.414, 4th floor, C- Wing Raj Infinia,	07.08.2013	31.07.2013	Rs.17862159/-
CC/174/2020	Muringassril Jacob Kuruvilla & Mrs. Susan George	Flat No.A-602, 6 th floor, AWing Raj Infinia,	28.08.2013	31.08.2013	Rs.17706142/-
CC/175/2020	Jignesh Tapiawala & Mrs. Shital Tapiawala	Flat No.C1714, 4th floor, C- Wing Raj Infinia	07.09.2013	16.09.2013	Rs.17742859/-
CC/177/2020	Shirley Coutinho & Philomena Countinho	Flat No.1505, 15th floor, B Wing Raj Infinia	07.09.2013	07.09.2013	Rs.13909600/-
CC/255/2020	Ravi Agrawal & Swati Agrawal	Flat No.C-814, 8 Th floor, Raj Infinia,	20.07.2013	17.09.2013	Rs.18100531/-

3. Akshay Gupta and Garima Mishra have filed CC/63/2020 for quashing Loan Recall Notice dated 19.09.2019, issued by ICICI Bank Limited (opposite party-1) and any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case.

6. The complainants filed Rejoinder Reply on 21.09.2020, Affidavit of Evidence of Akshay Gupta and documentary evidence on 20.01.2021. Opposite party-1 filed documentary evidence through E-dakhil on 01.03.2021 and same document has been filed through IA/2256/2021, which is allowed and the documents are taken on record.
7. We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. The complainants took plea that there was an agreement between the bank and the builders for promotion of the project “Raj Infinia”. This fact has been denied by the bank. The complainants filed a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 01.07.2013, executed between Sanket International Ltd. and ICICI Bank Limited. A perusal of this document does not indicate that the builder had taken liability of paying EMI till delivery of possession. Clause 9 of sale agreement dated 17.08.2013, between the complainants and builders, mentioned that the promoters had entered into an agreement with ICICI Bank Ltd. to promote subvention scheme popularly known as 20:80 for the benefit of their purchasers. It only means that bank was ready to give loan to the extent of 80% of the cost of the flat under subvention scheme. It does not mean that the liability of the complainants to repay the loan/EMI was absolved till delivery of possession as there was no such contract between the bank and the complainants. As such, the argument in this respect cannot be accepted.
8. The complainants relied upon email dated 23.07.2013 and 28.08.2013. In these e-mails, it has been mentioned that “This loan is under developer subvention scheme for the period of 36 months or possession, whichever is later.” In this sentence, it has been clearly mentioned that the loan is under developer subvention scheme and not under any scheme of the bank. Similar sentence is incorporated in the agreement to sale between the complainants and the builder. The builders paid pre-EMI till April, 2019. Under the Facility Agreement and Undertaking, the complainants are bound to pay EMI, if the builders stop payment.
9. It is not disputed that the complainants took the home loan and executed Facility Agreement. They are liable to repay it in accordance with Facility Agreement, for which the complainants also executed an Undertaking, in which they took liability to pay the EMI if the builder stopped payment of it. Therefore, the complainants cannot deny the payment of EMI on the ground that under Sale Agreement the builders were liable to pay EMI till the date of delivery of the possession. Admittedly, the complainants withdrew from the Sale Agreement in 2018, therefore, there was no question of delivery of possession to them.
10. So far as the Circular of Reserve Bank of India dated 03.09.2013 is concerned, it is advisory in nature and will have prospective application. The loan of the complainants was already sanctioned and Facility Agreement as well as Undertaking were executed on 21.08.2013. The circular will have no effect on it.

ORDER
The complaints have no merit and are dismissed.