STATE BANK OF INDIA vs RAJ KUMAR on 2 September 2026

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 26.O4.2}l}through Mr' Sushil 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.30,64,791l- together with cost, charges and pendentellite and future interest @8'90o/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 no.l, the applicant bank sanctioned a SBI Home Loan Scheme Facility of Rs'28,00,000/-, vide arrangement letter dated 21.01'2016' The defendant executed all necessary loaning documents on 21.01.2016. The loan amount was paid to the defendant no.2 by the applicant bank on the request of the defendant no'1. A Tripartite Agreement dated 21.01.2016 executed !"Be"n the defendant nos'1 & 2 <\Y

with the applicant bank. In order to secure the above said home loan facility, the defendant no'1 mortgaged the flat as primary security and also as per tripartite agreement it was agreed by defendant no'2 that charge in favour of the SBI shall be first and paramount over the charge which the builder may have over the said flat'

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 26'10'2017' The applicant bank serued a legal notice dated 20'02'2018 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 no'1 put appearance through counsel but failed to file wriften statement. Thereafter, the defendant no'l failed to put appearance in the matter. Accordingly, the defendant no.1 was proceeded against exparte on 04'01'2024' The defendant no.2 failed to put appearance at all, despite publication. Accordingly, the defendant no'2 was proceeded against exparte on 04'01'2024'

5. The applicant bank has filed documents along with OA as Annexure A-1 to Annexure A-17 which have gone unchallenged and un-rebutted' Hence, the case of the E).'

applicant bank stands fully estabtished against defendants with respect to nonpayment of outstanding amount. the EMI/

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 2 of the Tripartite Agreement is as follows:- "2. That the Buitder/Developer agrees that it has no objection to the Bonower(s) mortgaging the said flat with proprtionate share in land to the SBI as wurity for the sid toan agrd to be advancd by the SBI for the purpose of purcha*/anstruction of the sid flat' In the event of defautt in the repayment of loan and or the Bonower committing any other default which makes the Bonowe(s) liabte for the repayment of the entire amount outstanding in the sid loan as per the terms of the Loan Agrement exxutd betwen the Borrower(s) and the 5BI, the Buitder shall, at the rquest of SBI' fu under obligation to not deliver posession to the Borrower and/or cancel the booking and pay all the amounts rueivd by the Buitder on behatf of the Botower(s) to SBI including aln any amount paid by the Bonower to the Buitder. However, the Builder/developer shall be entitled to recover cancellation and/or any other charges' if any payabte by the Borower under the terms of apptiation form for purchase of the said flat and/or agrement to ste/construction out of the Bonower's contribution. upon payment of the amounts by the ' Buitder/Developer to SBI as aforeaid, the SBI and the e).

TA NO. 1553 of 2023

Bonower witt not have any claim, charge, lien, mortgagg right, titte and interest etc. whaboeverl over the sid flat SBI shall issue a certiftate to release any mortgage/charge/tien creatd on the sid flat' The Borrower hereby expressly agres that in the event of defautt in either repayment of the loan or any other defautt by the Botower, SBI shall be entitled to rquest the Builder to cancet the booking and return the amounts receivd by the Builder and the Bonower agres and acknowledges that any such rquest by SBI and payment made by the Buitder under this claus to 5BI shall be binding uPon the Borower."

7. As per conditions contained in the Tripartite Agreement at 21.01.2016 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 enUre 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'1' 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 certa!1 EMIs as mentioned by the E,\

TANO. 1553of2023 5 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 wilt 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 appticant bank' In the light of the above discussions, the Original Application deserves 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'30,64,79U- along with cost, expenses and interest @8'90o/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 Flat No'C- 1106, Tower-C, 11u' Floor, out of Khasra No'998' Red Apple Residency, Raj Nagar Extension, Ghaziabad (U'P)' 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 Recgvery 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 02'LL'2026' Pending IAs, if any, stand disPosed of. File be consigned to records' g) '.. Date : 02.09.2026 (susHrL KUMAC Cnsroct) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi This judgement has been signed, dated and pronounced in oPen couft' Date : 02.09.2026 sA (susHIL KUMAR cnsroq) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi