Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA): While considering a complaint under Section 31, Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the Single Member Bench of Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Member, granted interim protection to the complainants and directed State Bank of India (SBI) not to take any coercive action against them for recovery of the housing loan amount disbursed to the promoter, holding that the interim relief sought deserved to be allowed in the facts of the case.
The matter arose from a complaint filed by the allottees of 2 flats in Shivraj Residency for a total sale consideration of ₹98,44,500, and they availed a housing loan from SBI for purchasing the units. The loan amount of ₹72,48,564 was directly disbursed by the bank into the promoter’s account. According to the complainants, Clause 4 of the tripartite agreement specifically provided that in the event the project was shelved, the promoter would be liable to repay the bank.
The complainants submitted that although the promoter initially serviced the interest liability, it subsequently defaulted in making further payments. Consequently, SBI instituted Original Application No. OA/670/2021 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur, seeking recovery of the outstanding loan amount not only from the promoter but also from the complainants, despite the stipulations contained in the tripartite agreement. Aggrieved by the initiation of recovery proceedings, the complainants approached the Rajasthan RERA seeking interim relief to restrain the respondents from acting in a manner prejudicial to their rights and to direct SBI not to take any coercive action against them pending adjudication of the complaint.
The authority examined the record and noted that SBI itself had pleaded before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur, that the housing loan had been sanctioned and disbursed to the promoter but the sale deed had not yet been executed, and, in terms of the tripartite agreement, the promoter was liable to discharge the bank’s dues.
Considering the submissions advanced and the material placed on record, the authority held that the interim relief sought by the complainants deserved to be allowed. Accordingly, it restrained the respondents from carrying on or continuing any action detrimental to the complainants’ interests in respect of the 2 flats and directed SBI not to take any coercive action against the complainants for recovery of the amount advanced to the promoter under the housing loan account.
The matter was directed to be listed for further hearing on 20 August 2026.
[Brijesh Kumar Agarwal v. Shivshakti Realhome (P) Ltd., RAJ-RERA-C-N-2026-9646, decided on 30-6-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Tarun Agarwal, Advocate
