UNION BANK OF INDIA vs MS. PRACHI SHUKLA on 27 July 2026

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 11'05'2018 through Mr'Tlwari Ajay Kumar Deepak, Chief Manager of the applicant bank' under Section 19 of the RDB Act' 1993 against the defendant no. 1 to 3 for recovery of a sum of Rs.15,86,049/- together with cost' charges and pendentellite and future interest @ 12'50o/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 requestofthedefendantno'1&2theapplicantbank sanctioned, on 09'01'2013, a Home Loan Facility of Rs.19.50 Lacs for purchase of an under construction Unit No. E-1605, 16u' Floor' Tower/Blcok-E' admeasuring 880 sq'f in Elegant Ville situated at Plot s.\':

no. GH-06B, Sect-Tech Zone O4' Greater Noida' Dist' Gautam Budh Nagar, UP from defendant no'3' The defendant no.l have agreed with terms and condition and acknowledge/sign the CSI dated 09'01'2013 and alsoexecutedtherelevantloaningdocumentsdated 15.02.2013. The aforesaid credit facility was secured by moftgage of the property mentioned above' A Tripartite agreement dated 15'02'2013 has been entered into between the defendant no'1' appticant bank and defendant no'3'

3. It is further submitted that the defendants enjoyed and utilized the Loan facility' but faited to maintain the financial disciptine 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' Therefore, the applicant bank serued a demand notice dated 30.04.2018 to the defendants' demanding the amount due as on that date, but failed to recover the same. Thus, the present O'A' is preferred by the applicant bank to recover its dues'

put apPearance at all' accordinglY defendants exparte on 11.06'2024' On notice by this Tribunal' defendants failed to desPite Publication and were Proceeded against <A

TAl24tl2o24

5. The documentary evidence filed by the applicant bank along with the OA from paper no' 2L to ll7 have gone unchallenged and un-rebutted'

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 Tripaftite Agreement with the builder along with the borrower' The Ld. Counsel for the applicant has submifted that the builder stood discharged from the proceedings before the Ld. NCLT in February'2O24' Para 3 of the Tripartite agreement is as follows:- '3. That in the event of the Borrower and or buitder/tandownerfaitingtocompletethegle tansaction and registration theraf as per the agreement betwen the Buitder/l-and Owner & Bonower, the Builder/Land Owner undeftakes and agrees to return alt the money rueivd by him' in connection with amount disburcd by the Bank to the BorrowerforpurchaseoftheFlatinquestionwith interest to the Bank''

7. As per conditions contained in the Tripaftite Agreement at para no'3' 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 thq borrower or from the 9tr'.

applicant bank in lieu of the payment of the construction of the flat' More over' 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 & 2' 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 borrowerhasalsopaidthemarginmoneytothe 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 penality 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 itisonlythebuilderwhoisliabletopaythedefaulted amount to the aPPlicant bank'

8. In the light of the above discussions' the Original Application deserves to be allowed against defendant no'3.

ORDER

1) I herebY allow this O'A' of the APPlicant Bank and direct the defendant no' 3 to pay to the applicant within 30 daYs from today' a sum of bank s,\

s Rs.15,86,049/- along with cost' expenses and interest @ 10.50o/o from the date of filing of this O'A' which has become TA till the date of realization' recovered from the sale of the mortgaged propertY bearing no. Unit No' E-1505' 16s Floor' Tower/Blcok- E, admeasuring 880 sq'f in Elegant Ville situated at Plotno.GH-06B,Sect-TechZone04'GreaterNoida' Dist. Gautam Budh Nagar' UP' In case of short fall' the same shall be recovered from the sale of personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant no'

In case of failure to deposit the above amount within the stiPulated Period' the same shall be

Recovery Certificate be issued fofthwith and be sent to Recovery Officer' Delhi. Debts Recovery TribunaFll' both the Parties' s) Parties are direct to appear before the Ld' Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi on 28'09'2026' Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of' Fite be consigned to records'

4) The registry of this Tribunal is hereby directed to issue free copy of the order and send the same to sA (susHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi Date t27.07.2026

TAl24tl2024 This judgement has been signed' dated and pronounced in oPen court'

Dale:27.07.2026 .'.-.--J ((^ ( su s H I L rU-l,rnfriisrocr ) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi T