AXIS BANK LTD vs JASSIT SHILPI KHALKHO on 5 August 2026

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 04.01.2019 through Mr' Amandeep Chugh, Authorized Representative and Constituted Attorney of the applicant ban( under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.30,24,3671- 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 sdnctioned a Home Loan Facility of Rs.50.00,000/-, vide sanction letter dated2g.05.2014forpurchasethepropertybearingFlat No-14156, Floor- 14h, Block-Marvella' Mahagun my Wood, GH-04 Sec-16C, Greater Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar, having super area 1190 Sq' Ft (approx) in the t{

TANO.662of2022 residential pQect "Mahagun my wood" proceeded against exparte on situated at Mahagun my wood, GH-04 Sec-16C' Greater Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar to be developed by the defendant no.3. The repayment of the Home Loan was to be secured by way of creation of security by mortgage/equitable mortgage of the aforesaid property' The defendant no.3 has issued permission to mortgage dated 15.10'2014. A Tripartite Agreement dated 15.10.2014 executed defendant no'1 and defendant no'3 with the aPPlicant bank.

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' The applicant bank served a legal demand notice dated 22'L2'20L8 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, defendants failed to put appearance at all, despite publication' Accordingly' the defendants were 20.01.2025.

5. The applicant bank has filed documents as Annexure A-1 to Annexure A-13 which have gone unchallenged and un-rebutted' Hence' the case of the applicant bank stands fully established against the c\

TANO.662of2022 3 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 4,5 & 6 of the Tripartite Agreement is as follows:- '4. It is agrcd by and betwen the parties to this Agrcement that in ca* if the BORROWER fails to honour the commifrnen| the develoPer/BUILDER shall inform tfie BANKandthe BANKshall havethe right to Fy fie hte considention and get it registercd either in BAIIK's name or iB nominee' Likewise in the event the Bortower defaulB in payment of insbllmenb then, in such an event also, the Bank shatl have the right to infomr ahout such default on the part of the Bonower to the Buitder and shatl amdingly have lfie rAffi b wrtte to the Buitder for anellation of the Agt@mentexecufud htwen the Builderand the Bonower, wherc afur the hnk shall have the right tu pay the fule onsideration and get d'e subject Property rcgiturcd eitfier in the Bank's name or in tfie name of the Bank? nominee'

5. The Boftower agfiees and onftrms that in the event of tfie Bank enforcing iB righb as sbfud in clause 4 above, the Bonower shall not object/antefi the fime in anY manner wha@even 9\

TANO.662of2022 4

6. It is hercbY sP&ificailY agteed and confirmed by the prties to this agrcement that in ttrc eventof dehufton the partof the Bonoweras mentioned in clause 4 above, the Bank shall in addition to the temedy auailable to the bnlS as is statud in clau* 4 abve, also have legal rtgfi b demand fiom the Buitder the inbrest due to the Ban k fiom dre Bonower by rcovering tfie inercst amount fiom the Bonower? matgin money tlrat was paid bf the Borrower in his/her apacity as the cutumer of the Buitder at the time of booking of the subiect flat, The Builder ages and anfirms that fie Buitder shall not obiect to the Bank's aounse of action in twovering the Bank's inDrcrt by demanding fiom the Builder the matgin money as stahd hercinafuve' Upon any such demand made by the Bank to the Builder, the Buitder shatl without any prutest or demur pay to the Banl<, the demanded amountfmm the matgin amount paid by tfie Bonower in his/her aryciU as the cusbmerb the Builden'

7. As per conditions contained in the Tripartite Agreement at 15.10.2014 at para no. 4,5 & 5, 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 bf the payment of the construction of the flat' Moreover, from the perusal of the entire facts it is q)

TANO.662of2022

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 and 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 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'30,24,367/- along with cost, expenses and interest @10'25o/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 q.

TANO.662of2022 6 from the sale of mortgagd property bearing Flat No- 14156, Floor- 14h, Block-Marvella, Mahagun My Wood, GH-04 Sec-16C, Greater Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar, having super area 1190 Sq. Ft (approx)' In case of short fall, the same shall be recovered 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 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 05.10.2026' Pending IAs, if any, stand disPosed of. File be consigned to records. Date : 05.08.2026 <^\ (susHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi This judgement has been signed, dated and pronounced in oPen court' Date : 05.08.2026 s)' (susHIL KUMAR ilABtfrcrl PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi