Dismissed
Dallbir Singh & Anr. v. Uco Bank & Ors.
Delhi HCW.P.(C)/4545/2022
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C)…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~7
DALLBIR SINGH & ANR .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Lisha, Advocate
versus
UCO BANK & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Nisha Chauhan proxy for Mr. I S Chauhan, Advocate for UCO Bank. Ms. Mahima Ahuja and Ms. Varsha Banerjee, Advocates for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
%
O R D E R 01.08.2024
“ 1. The petitioners have filed the present petitions, inter alia, praying that the proceedings instituted by the respective banks (hereafter ‘ respondent banks ’) before the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal (hereafter ‘ the DRT ’) be stayed.
2. The petitioners are homebuyers and are, essentially, aggrieved by the actions instituted by the respondent banks for recovery of the debts due, on account of financial assistance extended for purchase of the residential flats allotted to the respective petitioners.
3. The petitioners had booked respective residential flats being developed by the concerned builders (who are also arrayed as respondent(s) in the respective petitions (hereafter ‘ the builders ’). The builders had issued
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 21:10:30
allotment letters in respect of residential flats allotted to the concerned petitioners and had also entered into separate Builder Buyer Agreements with the petitioners in respect of the respective flats allotted to them. In terms of the said agreements, the possession of the said flats was required to be handed over to the concerned petitioners within a stipulated period.
4. The petitioners claim that the builders had introduced them to officials of the respondent banks for availing finance facilities. Thereafter, the parties (the flat buyers, the builders and the respondent banks) had entered into separate Tripartite Agreements for financing purchase of the residential flats. In terms of the said agreements, the respondent banks had disbursed amounts directly to the builders. The petitioners are, essentially, aggrieved as the builders have neither handed over possession of the flats nor refunded any of the amounts paid by them or the respondent banks.
5. According to the petitioners, the disbursement of loan amounts by the respondent banks in favour of the builders is contrary to the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and in most cases, funds were disbursed in complete disregard to the status of the construction of the residential flats at the material time.
6. In most of the present petitions, the petitioners claim that in terms of the Tripartite Agreements, the builders were required to service the loans prior to handing over the respective residential units, however, have failed to do so.
7. The builders had undertaken to hand over the residential units within a stipulated period of time. The petitioners claim that the builders have been unable to complete the construction of the residential flats and in the given circumstances, the petitioners are not liable to repay any amount to the concerned bank.
8. The petitioners claim that no amounts can be recovered from them, as the respondent banks had disbursed the amounts directly to the builders. The petitioners contend that in terms of the Tripartite Agreement, they are not liable to repay the amounts as the possession of the respective residential flats allotted to them has not been delivered to them.
9. This Court is of the view that it would not be apposite for this Court to entertain the present petitions as the petitioners have the right to urge the grounds as advanced, before the learned DRT. The question whether the respondent banks are entitled to recover any amount from the petitioners is required to be addressed by the learned DRT in the first instance in the proceedings instituted under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 21:10:30
10. In view of the above, the present petitions are disposed of. It is clarified that all rights and contentions of the parties are reserved. The petitioners are not precluded from raising such contentions as may be advised, before the learned DRT.
11. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claims made by the petitioners. ”
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J
AUGUST 1, 2024 Aj
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 21:10:30
Dallbir Singh & Anr
UCO Bank & Ors
Tushar Rao Gedela
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court