UNION BANK OF INDIA vs SH NAVEEN KUMAR AND OTHERS on 20 May 2025

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 10'07'2018 through Mr' Kapil Dev' Chief Manager of the applicant bank' under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs'38,17,355/- together with cost' charges and pendentellite and future interest @12.25o/o 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 the defendant nos' 1 and 2, the applicant bank sanctioned a Housing Loan Facility of Rs'41'00 Lacs for the purchase a under construction Apartment No'5153' <A

TANO.744of2024 2 15u' Floor, Tower-S, measuring super 1316 Sq. Ft in White House, Situated at Group Housing Plot No.08, Chorosia Estate, Sector-Pl 1 & 2' at Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U'P' vide sanction letter dated 25.06.2014. The defendant nos'l & 2 executed all necessary loaning documents dated 09'07'2014' The aforesaid Credit Facilities were secured by mortgage of the aforesaid propefly' A Tripartite Agreement dated 09'07'2014 executed between defendant nos. 1 & 3 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 faited 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.Therefore,theapplicantbankserveda 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 OA|I'A' is preferred by the applicant bank to recover its dues'

On notice by this Tribunal, defendanE failed to publication and oceeded against area put appearance at all, accordinglY defendants expafte on 01.02.2023' desPite were pr

5. The applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of the affldavit of Sh' Kapil Dev' Chief Manager of applicant bank as paper no' 21 to 96' CA

TANO. 744 of 2024

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 3 of the Tripartite agreement is as follows:- '3. That in the event of the botower and or Builder/tand Owner failing to complete the sale transction and registration thercof as per the agreement between Builderland Owner & Borrower, the Builder/land Owner underbkes and agrees to return att the moneys received by him, in connection with theamountdisburced by the Bank to the Borrower for purcha* of the flat in question with interest to the Bank'"

7. As per conditions contained in the Tripartite Agreement dated 09'07'2014 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 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 constructionoftheflat.Theapplicantbankhasnot claimed that the builder in violation of the terms and conditions has handed over the flat to the defendant no.1 & 2. The borrower has not taken any amount in

C)..

TANO.744of2024 4 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 witl amount double penalty on the borrower' The borrower has received no money and has still paid the margin money and also certainEMlstothebankandhasgotinreturnnothing. 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' 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'38'17'355/' along with cost, expenses and interest @ 10'25o/o from the date of flling of this OA 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 property i'e' Apartment No.5153, 15n Floor, Tower-S' measuring super area 1316 Sq' Ft in White House' Situated at Group Housing Plot No'08, Chorosia Estate' Sector-Pl 1 & 2, at Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar' U'P' In case s\'

TANO.744of2024 5 of shoft 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 Parties.

5) Pafties are directed to appear before the Ld' Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhion 2l'07'2025' Pending IAs, if anY, stand disPosed of' File be consigned to records' I €"\ ,t^ (susHIL KUMAR nnstobrl PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, DCIhi This judgement has been signed, dated and pronounced in open court' Date : 20.05'2025 Date : 20.05.2025 ! s,\ ( susHIL ru rqn( nnsi-tjdrl PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi T