Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + HC Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2019 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 920 - HC - Insolvency and BankruptcyRecovery proceedings - attachment orders - notices to the petitioner under Section 226(3) - in 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) - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the opposite party nos.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 were not parties in the first writ petition. The second writ petition discloses that HDFC was arrayed as respondent nos.3 and 4 in the second petition. The builder was also arrayed as respondent no.5 in the second writ petition. The second writ petition was disposed of finally 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 take appropriate action in accordance with law. As 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. 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 its letters dated 13 October 2012 and 22 October 2013, cannot be said to be contumacious. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the applicant on the statement of account that has been filed by the HDFC in its affidavit of compliance in an effort to demonstrate that there was no default of the loan account and that, therefore, the decision of the HDFC is mala fide, cannot be a cause for proceeding against the opposite parties for contempt.
|