STATE BANK OF INDIA vs MR. RAHUL MITTAL & ORS. on 14 October 2026

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 20.03.2020 through Mr. Sushil Kumar Chadha, Chief Manager of the applicant bank, under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.49,71,4991- together with cost, charges and pendentellite and future interest @10.30o/o from date of filing of this O.A. tillthe realization in full.

2. The brief facts of the case are that at the request of the defendant no.1, the applicant bank sanctioned a Home Loan Facility Rs.51,00,000/- on 20.01'2018 for purchase of property being 4BHK+3T+ seruant room flat in Block-A, Plot No.GH-07, Palam Wood Enclave, Sector-6, Wave City, NH-24, Ghaziabad, Uttam Pradesh being a member having share certificate no.656 of Sanchar Nest Sahakari Awas Samiti Ltd i'e., defendant no.2 and out of tne sa{ sanctioned amount of €}..r TANO. 484 of 2024

Rs.51,00,000/- a total sum ofRs.48,45,000/- has been disbursed as per request of the defendant no.1 till date. The defendant no.1 executed all necessary loaning docu ments on 26.t2.20 17, 29.0L.20L8 a nd 30. 0 1. 20 1 8. To secure the due repayment in the aforesaid housing loan facility, defendant no.1 has undertaken to create an equitable mortgage of the aforesaid property. The defendant no.2 had given no objection to mortgage, vide undertaking qua mortgage of the aforesaid property. A Tripartite Agreement dated 30.01.2018 executed between defendant no.l and defendant no.2 with the applicant bank.

3. It is further submitted that the defendants enjoyed and utilized the Loan facility, 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 on 15'07.2019. Therefore, the applicant bank served a demand notice dated 21.02.2020 to the defendants, demanding the amount due as on that date, 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, defendants failed to put appearance at all, despite publication. Accordingly, the defendants were proceeded against exparte on 16.01.2025.

5. The applicant bank has filed evidence by way of affidavit of Mr. Sushil Kumar Chadha, Chief Manager of the applicant bank as Paper No.1 to Paper No.58 which €)..'

TANO.484of2024 3 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.

6. Heard the Ld. Counsel of applicant bank and perused the records. From perusal of the record, it is clear that at the time of executing loan documents the applicant bank has entered into a Tripartite Agreement with the builder along with the borrower' Para 2 of the Tripartite agreement is as follows: - "2. That the Buitder agres that it has no obiqtion to the Borrower(s) mortgaging the said flat with proportionate share in tand to the SBI as security for the sid loan agred to be advancd by the SBI for the purpose of purchase/construction of the sid flat' In the event of defautt in the repayment of loan and/or the Borrower(s) commixing any other default which makes the Bonower(s) tiabte for the repayment of the entire amount outstanding in the said toan as pr the terms of the Loan Ag rement executd betwen the Borower(s) and the 5BI, the Builder shatt at the rquest of SBI, be under obligqtion to not deliver possession to the Borrower and/or to cancel the fuoking and pay all amounts receivd by the Buitder on behatf of the Borrower(s) to SBI including atn any amount paid by the Borrower to the Builder However, the builder/developer shatt be entitled to rtrover cancellation and/or any other charges, if any payable by the Borrower under the terms of application form for purchase of the said flat and/or agrement to sale/construction out of the furower's contribution' lJpon payment of the amounts by the Builder/Developer to SBI as aforeaid, the SBJ3nd the Borower will not g)r.

TANO. 484 of 2024

have any claim, chargg lien, mottgage, right, title and interest etc. whaboever, over the sid flat' SBI shatl issue a ceftificate to release any mortgage/charge/tien created on the said flat The Borrower hereby expressly agrees that in the event of defautt in either repayment of the loan or any other defautt by the Borrower, SBI shall be entitld to reguest the Builder to cancel the booking and return the amounts rueived by the Builder and the Borrower agrees and acknowledges that any such rquest by SBI and payment made by the Buitder under this clause to 5BI shall be binding upn the Borower"'

7. As per conditions contained in the Tripartite Agreement dated 30.01.2018 at para no'2, 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 entire 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 no.l. The borrower has not taken any amount in his account and the entire amount has been paid to the builder. In addition to this the borrower 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 ex.\

TANO.484of2024 5 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 certain 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 present T.A. deserues to be allowed against the defendant no. 2.

ORDER

1) I hereby allow this T.A. of the Applicant Bank and direct the defendant no. 2 to pay to the applicant bank within 30 days from today, a sum of Rs.49,7L,4991- along with cost, expenses and interest @8.35olo 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 the mortgaged propefi being 4BHK+3T+ servant room flat in Block-A, Plot No.GH-O7, Palam Wood Enclave, Sector-6, Wave City, NH-24, Ghaziabad, Uttam Pradesh' In case of short fall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant no' 2'

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

TANO.484of2024 6

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, Delhion L4.12.2026. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of. File be consigned to records. SJ Date : 14.10.2026 (SUSHIL KUMAR RASrOGI) PRESIDING OFRCER DRT-II, Delhi This judgement has been signed, dated and pronounced in open couft. c.\ Date : 14.10.2026 (susHrl KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi