UCO BANK vs SANJAY KUMAR GHARDE AND OTHERS on 27 May 2025

FINAL ORDER

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 23'11'2016 through Mr' D'R' Meena, Branch Manager of the applicant bank' under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the defendants forrecoveryofasumofRs'10'16'605/-togetherwith cost, charges and pendentellite and future interest @9.70olo from date of filing of this O'A' tilt the realization in full'

2. The brief facts of the case are that at the request of the defendant no'1 & 2' the applicant bank sanctioned a Term Loan Under UCO Shelter Loan Scheme of Rs.25,00,000/-, vide sanction letter dated 2g.Lt.2ll3. The above-mentioned term loan facility wasattherelevanttimesecuredbydepositoforiginal Allotment Letter/Builder-B-uyer- Agreement' Tripartite €\

TA NO. 279 of 2022 Agreement and the other documents with intention to create equitable mortgage of residential Flat No' T- 7lA-4t2, Project SHUBHIGMNA LORDS Plot No' SC- 0UD-1, Sector-79, Noida, U'P admeasuring 1165 scl' ft' The defendant no.3 offered itself to be guarantor to the loan amount and consented to put through equitable mortgage transaction by the borrower in respect of the aforesaid property with undivided interest of the property which belongs to defendant no'3 by virtue of the Tripaltite Agreement' The defendants executed all necessary loaning documents on 13'11'2013' 29.08.2013, 02.t2'2013 and 29'11'2013' A Tripartite Agreement dated 13'11'2013 executed between defendant no.1, 3 and 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 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 on 30.09.2013' Therefore, the applicant bank served a notice dated 19.10.2016 to the defendants' demanding the amount due as on that date, 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'l & 2 put appearance through counsel but failed to file written statement and the right of defendants to flle dated to Put written statement 27.07.20!8. The was closed vide order defendant no.3 failed

4) i:

TANO. 279 of 2022 appearance at all. Thereafter, the defendants failed to put appearance, despite issuance of default notice. Accordingly, the defendants were proceeded against exParte on 14.02.2025'

5. The applicant bank has filed evidence by way of the affidavit of Mr' Sunil Kumar Sinha, Branch Manager of applicant bank as Paper No'l to Paper No'66'

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' Para 3 (c) of the Tripartite agreement is as follows: - "3 (c) ffie builder undeftakes to provide the original' ex{utd, duly stampd and rqisterd agreement for alq originat rqistration r*eipt and tetter of authority from Sub-reglistrar and/or sale dd in favour of the Borrower(s) within a period notexceding i0 days from the date of finat disburcement of the lun to the builder by the bank. The buitder shall ensure that effective security is creatd in favour of the Bank in the manner prescribed by the Bank' In the event of failure of the above or in event of any litigation affecting the sid property, the buitder shatt promptty and immdiately refundattthemoniesdisbutdbythebanktqether with interest at the rate accrud on such lans inctuding penat interest apptiable theron' In the event, the furrowe(s) requests for cancetlation of the atlotmenfi/agrement for sle' the builder shall obbin bank's prior written No obixtion certificate as also remit the loan amount disburred by the bank with interest at the rate accrued- on such loan including 5,"\

TANO.279of2022 4 penal interest appticabte theron from the procds of the cancetlation of the agreement for sle and remit the sme directty to the bank by banker's chegue or demand draft, favouring the bank for credit to the bonowe(s) home loan account and to remit the residuat amount to the borowerhhall arrange to refund the proceds of canceltation of agrement of nle dirxtty to the bank under advice to the borrower' If the botowe(s) faits n pay his stipulatd margin amount, the entire amount advanced by the bank will be refundd by the buitder to the bantq together with interest due including penat interest, if any' The builder undeftakes to obtain completion certificate and certificate of orcupation issud by the @mpetent Authority in respect of the proryrty and als undeftakes that buitder shatl not hand over the possession/conveyance ded of the property to the borrowe(s) without the prior written prmission of the bank. The builder agrees/undertakes and anfirms to obtain such wriffen consent from the funk'"

7. As per conditions containd in the Tripartite Agreement dated 13'11.2013 at para no'3 (c)' 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 c).-

TANO. 279 of 2022

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 & 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 present T'A' deserues 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'10,16,605/- along with cost, expenses and interest @ 9'70olo from the date of filing of this O.A which has become TA 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 residential Flat No. T-7lA-4t2, Project SHUBHKAMNA A,/

TANO.279of2022 6 LORDS Plot No' SC-0UD-1, Sector-79' Noida' U'P admeasuring 1165 sq. ft' In case of short fall' the same shallberecoveredfromthesaleofpersonalmovable 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) Parties are directed to appear before the Ld' Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhion 28'07'2025' Pending lAs, if any, stand disPosed of' File be consigned to records' .SA{ (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi This judgement has been signed, dated and pronounced in oPen coutt. Date : 27.05'2025 Date : 27.05.2025 t4€ (susHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi T