MUDIT SAXENA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these petitions broadly having common questions of law & facts inter alia seek to lay a challenge the coercive recovery measures of Housing Loans by the Respondent - lending agency i.e., Punjab National Bank Housing Finance Limited (hereafter 'PNBHFL'). They have also sought for a Writ of Mandamus directing the said Bank to refund the payments already made by them in terms of orders made by the Adjudicating Officer of RERA and to issue a 'No Due Certificate / No Objection Certificate', by rectifying their individual CIBIL Scores and removing the entries in the loan records which show outstanding amounts of money against their names.

(2.) After service of notice, the respondents are represented by their respective advocates. The answering respondents have filed their Statements of Objections opposing the writ petitions. Their advocates make submissions resisting the petition prayers, mainly contending that dispute is contractual in nature and therefore, petitioners should be relegated to other civil remedy forum, writ court not being appropriate for adjudication of lis of the kind. They also point out that the petitioner-borrowers in terms of loan agreements are bound to discharge the outstanding loans and that they have given certain letters undertaking to do it when the builder failed to. They also press into service 'suppressio veri' & 'suggestio falsi'. So contending, they seek dismissal of these petitions.

(3.) BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE: