PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK (ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE) vs SH. MANISH VARSHNEY on 24 September 2026

1. Sh. Manish Varshney

2. Mrs. Bhawana Varshney

3. nn/. JSS Buildcon h/t Ltd Present: -Applicant bank

- Defendants Sh. Mahesh K Chaudhary, Counsel appears for applicant bank. Defendant nos.l & 2 are exparte, since, 03.01.2025. Defendant no.3 is exparte dated 03.01.2025. FINAT ORDER This original application has been filed by the applicant ban( on L4.0B.2OZO through Mr. praveen Kumar Relan, Senior Manager of the applicant bank, under Section t9 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of ps.51,77,0601- together with cost, charges and pendentellite and future interest @9.05o/o p.a. from date of filing of this O.A. till the realization in full.

2. The brief facts of the case are that at the request of defendant nos.l & 2, the applicant bank sanctioned a Housing Loan Facility of Rs.58,00,000/- for the purchase of Under Construction Res!$tial Flat No. T-2lB-1-303, at t\

3d Floor in NCR MONARCH, Plot No.GH-02/C, having an area 1345 Sq. Ft', situated in Sector -1 Greater Noida West, U.P-201301, vide sanction letter dated 10'08'2018' Inter alia one of the terms of the sanction was creation of an equitable mortgage by the defendant nos'1 & 2 in respect of the aforesaid propefi as and when the construction of the property is completed by M/s' JSS Builders hlt Ltd/ defendant no.3. The defendant nos'1 & 2 executed all necessry loaning documents on 18.08.2018. It is submitted that the applicant ban( defendant nos.1 & 2 and defendant no'3 had signed and executed a Tripartite Agreement dated 18'08'218, wherein the defendant nos.1 & 2 had agreed to create an equitable mortgage in respect of the aforesaid propefi'

3. It is further submitted that the defendants enjoyed and utilized the Loan facilities, but failed to maintain the financial discipline and failed to repay the due amounts' The applicant bank requested the defendants to regularize the loan account by visits and letters, but there was no response from the defendants' Hence' the account was classified as NPA dated 28'09'2019' The applicant bank served a demand notice dated 74'02'2020 to the defendants but failed to recover the same Thus' the present O'A.ff.A. is preferred by the applicant bank to recover its dues.

4. On notice by this Tribunal, defendant nos'1 & 2 failed to put appearance at all, despite publication' Accordingly, the defendant nos.l & 2 were proceeded against expafte on 03.01.2025' The defendant no'3 put appearance through counsel and filed written statement q\r and evidence. Thereafter, the defendant no.3 failed to put appearance in the matter. Accordingly, the defendant no.3 was proceeded against exparte on 03.01.2025.

5. In their written statement the defendant no.3 has denied the facts mentioned in the OA' It is submitted that the present O.A/ application filed by the applicant bank is not maintainable and sustainable under law since the same is without any cause of action and deserve no other attention expect its outright dismissal with costs. It is submitted that present O.A/ application has not been filed by any competent person and unauthorized person on behalf of the applicant bank and thus the same deserue to be dismissed on this ground straight forwardly. It is fufther submitted that the O.A of the applicant is liable to be dismissed as the applicant bank has not supplied the clear and actual statement of account to the Honble Court nor to the defendant no.3. It is prayed that this Honble Tribunal may dismiss the present O.A'

6. The applicant bank has filed evidence by way of affidavit of Sh. Praveen Kumar Relan of the applicant bank as Annexure A to Annexure M which have gone unchallenged and un-rebutted. Hence, the case of the applicant bank stands fully established against the defendants with respect to nonpayment of EMI/ outstanding amount.

7. Heard the Ld. Counsel for the applicant bank and perused the records. From perusal of the record, it is clear that at the time of executing loan documents the t\, applicant bank has entered into a Tripartite Agreement with the builder along with the borrower. Para 14 of the Tripartite Agreement is as follows:- "14. In the event of any failure on the part of the Borrower to adhere to the agred terms and conditions or his / her death or insolvency or the occurrence of any situation, in the opintbn of the BanlC which renderc the recalling of the loan granted to the Borrower, the Developer agres that it shall not cancel the Agreement of Sale or execute any other document of onveyance or create any other encumbrances over the said Flat to any other person or deal with the Flat in any other mannerl until the dues to the Bank under the loan account of the Borrower is dixharged in full.."

8. As per conditions contained in the Tripartite Agreement at 18.08.2018 at para no.14, in case of default by the borrower the amount which has been paid by the borrower to the builder has to be returned to the bank. In the present case the borrower has made default in repayment of the EMIs and therefore, as per condition agreed between the parties, the builder is under obligation to return the entire amount which he has received from the borrower or from the applicant bank in lieu of the payment of the construction of the flat' Moreover, from the perusal of the entlre facts it is apparent that the borrower has taken the loan and the loan amount has been paid to the builder for construction of the flat. The applicant bank has not claimed that the builder in violation of the terms and conditions has handed over the flat to the defendant nos'1 & 2' The borrower has not taken any amount in his account and the entire amount has been paid to the buiber' In e.\

TANO. 1309 of 2024

additiontothistheborrower has also paid the margin money to the builder and also paid certain EMIs as mentioned by the applicant bank. The borrower has not got the possession of the flat. If the borrower is directed to pay the amount which has been actually paid to the builder this will amount double penalty on the borrower' The borrower has received no money and has still paid the margin money and also ceftain EMIs to the bank and has got in return nothing. In such circumstances and as per agreed terms and conditions it is only the builder who is liable to pay the defaulted amount to the applicant bank. In the light of the above discussions, the Original Application deserves to be allowed against the defendant no.3.

ORDER

1) I hereby allow this T.A. of the applicant bank and direct the defendant no.3 to pay to the applicant bank within 30 days from today, a sum of Rs'57,77,060/- along with cost, expenses and interest @9'15o/o from the date of filing of this O.A' which has become T'A till the date of realization.

2) In case of failure to deposit the above amount within the stipulated period, the same shall be recovered from the sale of mortgaged property bearing Residential Flat No. T-2lB-l-303, at 3'd Floor in NCR MONARCH' Plot No.GH-02/C, having an area 1345 Sq' Ft', situated in Sector -1 Greater Noida West, U'P-201301' In case of short fall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant no.3. 9r\

TANO. 1309 of 2024

3) Recovery Certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi.

4) The registry of this Tribunal is hereby directed to issue free copy of the order and send the same to both the pafties.

5) Parties are directed to appear before the Ld' Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi on 25.LL.2026. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. File be consigned to records. eI Date : 24.09.2026 (suSHIL (uMn[td{Sroct) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi This judgement has been signed, dated and pronounced in oPen court. Date z 24.09.2026 sx\ (susHrl KUMAR nn#dcil PRESIDING OFRCER DRT-II, Delhi