AXIS BANK LTD vs MR. PANKAJ KUMAR on 3 August 2026

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 25.t1.2019 through Mr' Aman Deep Chugh, Area Manager (Legal and Compliance Support) of the applicant bank, under Section 19 ofthe RDB Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.94,83,390/-07 together with cost, charges and pendentellite and future interest @24o/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.1 & 2, the applicant bank sanctioned a Home Loan Facility of Rs.1,12,46,81U- (if only with the Life Insurance) and Rs.1,10,00,000/- (If without any Insurance), vide sanction letter dated 26'11'2015 to book a Flat in the Project of the defendant no'3 namely Crescent ParC in Sector-92, Gurgaon. It is submifted that later on, pur.suant to the request made by the defendant no.1, a Residential Flat No.P042003, on 19n Floor in P04- Tower Petioles P05 Block in the Project Crescent ParC Mr. Deepak Sahni, Counsel appears for applicant bank. Defendants are exparte, since, 27.08.2025. sI

GreeParC-II, Sector-92, Gurgaon t2200t, ad- measuring 2226 $uare Feet (4BHK) in the Project of the defendant no.3 namely Crescent ParC in Sector-92, Gurgaon was allotted by defendant no.3 to the defendant no.l, vide Flat Buyer's Agreement dated 31.10.2015 executed by defendant no'3 in favour of defendant no.1.The repayment of the Home Loan was to be secured by way of creation of security by mortgage/equitable moftgage of the aforesaid property. The defendant no'3 had issued permission to mortgage dated 30.11'2015' A Tripartite Agreement dated 28.L2.2015 executed between defendant no'l and defendant no'3 with the applicant bank.

3. It is further submifted 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 09'01'2019' The applicant bank served a legal notice dated 25'09'2019 to the defendants but failed to recover the sanre Thus' the present O.A.ff.A. is preferred by the applicant bank to recover its dues.

4. On notiee by thisTribunal, defendants failed to put appearance.at all, despite publication' Accordingly' the defendants were proceeded against expafte on 27.08.2025.

5. The applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Mr. Aman Deep Chugh, Area Manager (Legal and Compliance Support) of the applicant bank as Annexure A-1 to Annexure A-11 which have gone c') I

TA NO. 1598 of 2022

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 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 applicant bank has entered into a Tripartite Agreement with the builder along with the borrower. Para 4 & 6 of the Tripartite Agreement is as follows:- '4, It is agrced by and belween the pafties to this Agrcement that in ca* if the BORROWER fails to honour the ommitment, the developer/BUILDER shatt inform the BANKandthe BANKshall havethe right to py tt e file consideration and get it rcgistercd either in BANK's name or iB nominee' Likewise in the event the Bonower defaulB in payment of insbtlmenB then, in such an event also, the Bank shalt have the ight to inform about such defautt on the paft of the Bonower to the Builder and shall accotdingly have the right to wrib to the Buitder for ancellation of the Agrcementexecufud between the Builderand the Borrower, whercafter the Bank shall have the right to pay the fule consideration and get the subiect poryrty reqistercd either in the Bank? name or in tfie name of the Bank's nominee'

6. ft is hereby specifialty agrced and confimted by the parties to this agrcement that in the event of defauft on the part of the Bonower as mentioned in clauee 4 above, the Bank shall in addiflon to the rcmedy awi!1-ble to the Banlt as is g"\i TA NO. 1598 of 2022

stafud in clause 4 above, also have legal n:ght to demand fiom the Builder the inhrcst due to the Bankfiom dte Bonowerbyrccovering dre interest amount frcm the Bortower's matgin money tltat was paid by the Bonower in his/her capcity as the customer of the Builder at the time of booking of the subiect flat The Builder agrees and confirms that dte Builder shall not ob1'*t to the Bank? coutse of action in rccovering tfie Bank? infurcst by demanding frum the Builder the margin money as sEEd heteinabove, Upon any such demand made by the Bank to the Builder, the Builder shall without any prohst or demur pay to the Banl<, the demanded amountfrom the margin amount paid by the Bonower in his/her aPaciU as the customer b the Builden"

7. As per conditions contained in the Tripartite Agreement at 28.L2.20t5 at para no. 4 & 6, 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 thedefendant nos.l and 2' The e.\,\

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 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 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.94,83,390 /- along with cost, expenses and interest @9.650lo 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. P042003, on 19b Floor in P04-Tower Petioles P05 Block in the Project Crescent ParC GreeParC-II, Sector- 92, Gurgaon t2200t, ad-measuring 2226 Square Feet (4BHK). In case of shoft fall. the same shall be recovered s.-\

from the sale of personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant no.3.

3) Recovery Certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to Recovery Offtcer, 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 parties.

5) Parties are directed to appear before the Ld. Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi on 05'10.2026. Pending IAs, if any, stand disPosed of. File be consigned to records. Date : 03.08.2026 !<; (susHIL KUMAR nnstoct) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi This judgement has been signed, dated and pronounced in oPen coutt. Date : 03.08.2026 SA (SUSHIL KUMAR R,ASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi