9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 920X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant to the order of this Court dated 27 September 2013 passed in this contempt application, the order dated 13 October 2012 was recalled by HDFC and the request of the applicant for instruction to the builder to restore allotment of the flat was considered afresh on the basis of his representation dated 1 October 2013 submitted to HDFC. In the decision, as communicated by letter dated 22 October 2013, HDFC categorically opined not to restore the housing loan facility granted to the applicant and expressed that it is not inclined to request or instruct the builder to restore his flat. A perusal of the decisions, as communicated by the HDFC pursuant to the representations filed by the applicant in compliance of the order of the writ Court/in this contempt application, reveal that in view of the business decision taken by the HDFC, the request for restoration of the housing loan facility was declined. The direction of the writ Court in the second writ petition has been complied with by HDFC. The disinclination expressed by the HDFC to direct the builder to restore allotment of the flat is apparently based on its business decision. Thus, the decisions of the HDFC, as communicated by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hment order dated 25 April 2011 were set aside. The respondents were restrained from proceeding against the petitioner under Section 226 of the Income Tax Act for recovery of any amount due to Ms. Vejenti Gupta. In the other Writ Tax No.216 of 2012 (second writ petition) , the applicant-petitioner prayed for a mandamus directing the respondent nos.3 and 4 to revive the financial facility provided to the petitioner in terms of a housing loan for purchasing a flat and to withdraw the letter of cancellation of allotment of the said flat. The respondent nos.3 and 4 were officers of Housing Development Financial Corporation Limited (HDFC) . It was contended in the second writ petition that HDFC had informed the petitioner that necessary instruction was issued to the respondent no.5 (M/s Garun Builders Pvt. Ltd. (builder) ) to cancel the allotment of flat. After receiving instructions from the Income Tax Department, the writ Court by its judgment dated 2 April 2012 disposed of the second writ petition while permitting the petitioner to submit a detailed representation before the respondent no.4, who was directed to look into the grievance of the petitioner and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bserved that in view of the finding recorded by the High Court, there is no valid reason for the HDFC to allow the request of the applicant seeking restoration of his allotment. Therefore, the representation of the applicant dated 13 April 2012 and all subsequent representations and reminders submitted on the subject stood accordingly declined and refused by the HDFC. A counter affidavit sworn on 5 September 2013 was also filed on behalf of the opposite party nos.4 and 5 who are the Directors of the builder in which it was stated that a tripartite agreement dated 25 February 2008 was executed between the applicant, the builder and HDFC as well as a prior Memorandum of Understanding dated 31 December 2007. Pursuant to the agreement, HDFC paid a sum of ₹ 15.30 lacs to the builder on behalf of the applicant in accordance with the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. It is stated in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit that the applicant was a defaulter and for the complete financial year, he did not pay a single penny towards monthly installment of house loan and, therefore, under the circumstances, HDFC sent a letter dated 30 October 2009 to the builder ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... instructions to the builder to restore allotment of Flat No.411 was considered afresh by means of a letter dated 22 October 2013. A perusal of the letter dated 22 October 2013 of HDFC reflects that the applicant's request was considered solely on commercial parameters and business interest of HDFC. It was stated that there was poor adherence to the payment schedule on the part of the applicant during the several financial years. There were 19 instances which reflected poor financial discipline maintained by the applicant. Therefore, the HDFC was of the opinion not to restore his housing loan facility or to request/instruct the builder to restore the allotment of his flat. It was stated that the loan account of the applicant stood closed in view of the deposits made by the builder and there is no account with the HDFC to the debit of the applicant where the HDFC could accept any sum of money as per the liberty granted to the applicant by the High Court in its order dated 27 September 2013. A copy of the letter of the HDFC dated 22 October 2013 is enclosed alongwith a supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant on 11 November 2013. Shri Praveen Kumar, learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h letter is enclosed as Anneuxre CA-3 to the counter affidavit dated 28 March 2015 filed on behalf of the opposite party nos.6 and 7. It is stated that any action taken by the HDFC prior to the aforesaid letter dated 13 November 2013 of the Income Tax Department for cancellation of allotment etc. is void. The learned counsel has referred to the various letters issued by HDFC to the opposite party nos.4 and 5 that are enclosed as Annexure CA-3 and subsequent annexures for refunding the entire amount of loan to HDFC. It is contended that by a letter dated 20 September 2010, the builder intimated to the applicant that they had cancelled the allotment of flat no.411 in his favour and that they are going to repay the advance amount of ₹ 15.30 lacs made by HDFC. This letter dated 20 September 2010 is enclosed as Annexure CA-6 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party nos.4 and 5. It is, therefore, contended that HDFC was bound to revive loan account in view of the order of the writ Court and the order of the Income Tax Department for withdrawing the attachment in respect of the flat no.411. The learned counsel has referred to the Statement of Account enclosed w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is noticed that pursuant to the order of this Court dated 27 September 2013 passed in this contempt application, the order dated 13 October 2012 was recalled by HDFC and the request of the applicant for instruction to the builder to restore allotment of the flat was considered afresh on the basis of his representation dated 1 October 2013 submitted to HDFC. In the decision, as communicated by letter dated 22 October 2013, HDFC categorically opined not to restore the housing loan facility granted to the applicant and expressed that it is not inclined to request or instruct the builder to restore his flat. It was further stated that since the loan account of the applicant already stood closed with deposits made by the builder on 23 August 2012, there is no account with HDFC to the debit of the applicant where the HDFC could accept any sum of money as per the liberty granted by this Court by means of the order dated 27 September 2013. A perusal of the decisions, as communicated by the HDFC pursuant to the representations filed by the applicant in compliance of the order of the writ Court/in this contempt application, reveal that in view of the business decision take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
