UNION BANK OF INDIA vs MS. KALPANA JADAUN on 29 October 2026

Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi TAl3Lsl2022 UNION BANK OF INDIA VS MS. KALPANA JADAUN & ORS Order on IA No.49912O26 Reserued on: 14.10.2026 Pronounced on: 29.10.2026 Present: Shri. Vishnu Jaysaval, Counsel for applicant bank. Shri Sanyam Jain, Counsel for defendant nos.1 and 2. Shri. Sarthak Pathak, Counsel for defendant no.3, Defendants are ex-pafte since 17.06.2025. Matter is taken through V.C./Hybrid mode.

2. IA no. 49912026 has been filed on behatf of defendant no.3 under Section 22 (g) of the RDB Act, 1993 seeking setting aside of Order dated L7.06.2025.

3. The Ld. Counsel of defendant no.4 has submitted that the applicant is neither the borrower nor the moftgagor of the subject property. The applicant is a mere developer/ builder of the project. The builder allotted the flats to multiple allottees however, the allottees failed to make timely payments because of the reasons best known to them, thereby leading to defaults and declaration of NPAs of their respective accounts. The defaulting allottees have also made request for surrender of their flat to the builder. The builder, in the interest of public, other homebuyers as well as the reputation of the project, is trying to setile the matter with defaulted allottees and respective banks SP , who have

availed home loans from various bank and have defaulted in payment of monthly installments. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Tribunal vide Order dated 29.06.201g issued notices to the defendants and directed the defendants to flle written statements, the applicant upon receipt of notice from this Hon,ble. Tribunal engaged an advocate to represent the applicant and take appropriate steps in accordance with the law in the interests of the applicant. The applicant in good faith always believed on the assurances made by the Ld. Counsel that he would comply with the Orders of the Hon'ble Tribunal and take necessary steps as required in law. Subsequently the matter got adjourned on several occasions due to covid-19 pandemic, administrative reasons, transfer of cases as per notification dated 04.10.2022 issued by the Govt. of India (Ministry of Finance), etc. as well as due to non-appearance on behalf of the applicant bank. Finally, when the matter came to be heard on LB.LZ.Z023 whereby no_one appeared on behalf of the defendants, the Hon'ble Tribunal issued default notices to the defendants and again on 20.05.2024. It is further submitted that the defendant no.3 never received any default notice nor the erstwhile Counsel informed about the status of the present case. The default notices were never served at the registered offlce of the applican! which precluded the applicant to put appearance on the next date of hearing i.e. on 17.06.2025.It is solely because of this reason that the applicant could not appear on 17.06.2025, whereby the applicant/ defendant no.3 was proceeded ex-parte. The erstwhile counsel of the applicant never informed the applicant as to the judicial proceedings of the present case and was misguiding the applicant for a very long time. *s reover, the erstwhile

J Ld. Counsel also failed to advise the applicants as per law, failed to appear and did not conduct the judicial proceedings in manner they were expected to be representing. The alleged seryice of notice, if any, is neither proper nor in accordance with law. No notice was ever served upon the applicant at its correct address nor was any notice received by them through registered post, speed post, courier, or any other recognized mode. It is submitted that few backs back, when an officer of the UCO Bank affixed a possession notice on the outer walls of, one of the flats in the project, the applicant came to know of the fact that multiple banks have approached the Hon'ble DRT against defaulting allottees. The applicant immediately engaged a counsel to track the cases and the came to know for the first time that the present matter is pending before the Hon,ble Tribunal from the newly appointed counsel. It is submitted that the applicant is neither the borrower or moftgagor, however to save the project and in the interest of public and the home buyers, the applicant is ready and willing to setfle the matter with the applicant bank and undertakes to make an OTS proposal within a week hereafter. It is prayed that this Honble Tribunal may order dated 17.06.2025 be set aside whereby the defendant no.3 was proceeded ex-parte.

4. The Ld. Counsel of applicant bank has strongly opposed the prayer of the defendant no. 3 and has submitted that the OA paper book has already been supplied to the defendants in the year of 2020 and he was given last opportunity to file the written siatement within a period of 15 days on 2g.01.2020, but the defendants has failed to comply the same and 9?

subsequent remain absent. Therefore the prayer of the defendant no. 3 is liable to be dismissed.

5. Heard the Ld. perused the record. Counsels of all the parties and

6. The main contention of the defendant no. 3 is that applicanVdefendant no. 3 engaged a counsel who appeared on behalf of the defendant no. 3. It is submitted that the Ld. Counsel of the defendant no. 3 has not acted properry and abstained from the Tribunar. It is submitted that the default notice issued by this Tribunal could not be serued upon the defendants as he has changed his address, therefore, he could not appear in the matter and the ex-pafte order has been passed against the defendants. In such circumstances, the order dated 17.06.2025 be set aside.

7. From perusal of the record, it is clear that the Ld. Counsel for the defendant no. 3 appeared and on 28.07.2020, defendant no. 3 was given opportunity to file the written statement within a period of 15 days and failing which, the right to file the written statement was directed to be closed automatically. Despite this, the defendants have not appeared and have not filed the written statement. Therefore, the contention of the defendants has no force. He was given last opportunity to file the written statement. As per provisions of Section 19(5) of the RDB Act, the defendants can file the written statement within 30 days from the date of receipt of the OA paper book. Defendant no. 3 has failed to file written statement within the stipulated time and therefore, by setting aside ex-parte order, defendant no. 3 can not be permitted to file the written statement. In li s9 ght of the

i {

above, this Tribunal is the of view that the contention of the defendant no. 3 has no force and IA no.4g912026 is liable to be dismissed.

ORDER

IA no.49912026 is hereby dismissed. List the matter on arguments. Dated: 29.10.2026 01.04.2027 for ex-parte final

(SUSHIL K MAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi