Allowed

Union Bank of India v. Sh Pardeep Singh Negi and Ors.

DRT24 Oct 2025TA/1023/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT allowed the recovery application filed by Union Bank of India. The court held that under the tripartite agreement and facts regarding non-possession, the builder was liable to pay the defaulted dues directly to the bank as ordering the borrower would constitute double penalty.

What did the court decide?

Direct the defendant no. 3 (builder) to pay Rs. 26,57,382/- along with cost and interest within 30 days or from sale of mortgaged property.

Union Bank of India versus Sh Pardeep Singh Negi and Ors. — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | DRT (2025)

¶1

Before SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Officer Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi

¶2

TA No.1023 OF 2023

¶3

uNroN BANK OF rNDrA (EW-CORPORATTON BANK) VS SH. PRADEEP SINGH NEGI AND ORS

¶4

Reserued on : 25.09.2025 Pronounced on : 24.10.2O25

¶5

Union Bank of India

¶6

(EW- Corporation Bank)

¶7

-^{Applicant bank}

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Sh. Pradeep Singh Negi

¶10

Mrs. Sarita

¶11

M/s Newtech La Palacia h^. Ltd.

¶12

Defendants

¶13

Present: Mr. Sandeep Soni, Proxy Counsel for Mr. Samarendra Kumar, Counsel for applicant bank.

¶14

Defendants are exparte since 13.02.2025

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 17.07.20t8 through Ms. Shivani Kanaujia, Chief Manager of the applicant bank, under Section 19 of the Recovery of^Debts and^Bankruptcy Act, 1993 againstthe defendants for recovery ofa^sum of Rs.26,57,382/- together with cost, charges^and pendentellite and future interest @ 11.650/o p.a. from date of filing of this O.A. till the realization in full.

¶17

The brief facts ofthe case are that at the^request of the defendant nos. 1 & 2, the applicant^bank sanctioned a Housing Loan Facility of^{Rs.29.72Lacs to} purchase Under Constru IOn Flat unit No.^D-1408,14h

TA NO. 1023 of 2023

Floor, Tower/Block-D, area measuring 1165 sq. ft in the housing^project Newtech La Palacia, situated at Plot No. Gh-09A, Tech Zone-IV, Greater Noida (west), UP, vide sanction letter dated 29.09.2016. The defendant nos.1 and 2 executed all necessary loaning documents on 27.10.20L6. The aforesaid credit facility was secured by mortgage of aforesaid property. A Tripartite Agreement dated 27.10.2016 executed in between defendant no.1 and defendant no.3 with the applicant bank.

¶22

It is fufther 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. The applicant bank served a demand notice of demand dated 25.04.2018 to the defendants, demanding the amount due as on that date, but failed to recover the same. Thus, the^present O.A.[I.A. is preferred by the applicant bank to recover its dues.

¶23

On notice by this Tribunal, defendant nos. 1 & 2 put appearance through counsel but failed to file written statement. Thereafter, the defendant nos.1 & 2 failed to^put appearance in the matter, despite issuance of default notice. Accordingly, the defendant nos.1 &² were^proceeded against exparte on 13.02.2025. The defendant no.3 failed to^put appearance at all, despite service. Accordingly, the defendants were^proceeded against exparte on 13.02.2025.

TA NO. 1023 of 2023

The applicant bank has filed evidence by way of the affidavit of Mr. Deepak Chandani, Branch Manager of applicant bank as Paper No.22 to Paper No.113.

¶28

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 4 of the Tripaftite agreement is as follows:^-

¶29

'4. That in the event of the Builder/Land Owner violating the terms of this agreement and/or failing to complete the construction of the flat in time or completing the construction of the flat but not handing over the^possession of the flat to the Borrower or completing the construction of the flat and handing over the^possession of the same to the Borrower in time but not executing and registering the sale deed/conveyance ded in respect of the said flat in favour of the Borrower as per the agreement executed between the BuilderlLand Owner and the Borower, or in the event of the cancellation of the agreement for whatever reason/borrower defaulting in the repayment of the loan installment, but before the execution of the sale deed/conveyance ded, the Builder/Land Owner undertakes and agrees to return to the Bank directly, all money received by him/her/them, directly from the Borower and als the amount disbursed by the Bank on behalf of the

t -,r,^--_

TANO. 1023 of2023

Borrower for purchase of the said fla| afrer retaining the permissible reductionq if any, as per the agreement to sell entered into between the Euilder/Land Owner and the Borrower, within a maximum period of 90 days ."

¶36

As per conditions contained in the Tripartite Agreement at para 4, in case of default 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 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 nos.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 hqs got in return nothing.

TANO. 1023 of2023

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.

¶41

In the light of the above discussions, the present T.A. deserues to be allowed against defendant no. 3.

¶42

ORDER

¶43

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.26,57,382/- along with cost, expenses and interest @ 9.600lo^from the date of filing of this O.A. which has become T.A till the date of realization.

¶44

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 bearing Under Construction Flat Unit No. D-1408, 14h Floor, Tower/Block-D, area measuring 1165 sq. ft in the housing project Newtech La Palacia, situated at Plot No. Gh-09A, Tech Zone-IV, Greater Noida (west), UP. In case of shoft fall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant no. 3.

¶45

Recovery Certificate be issued forthwith and be sent to Recovery Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il, Delhi.

¶46

¶47

TANO. 1023of2023 6 4) The registry of this Tribunal is hereby directed to issue free copy of the order and send the same to both the pafties.

¶48

Pafties are directed to appear before the Ld. Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi on 22.12.2025. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶49

File be consigned to records.

¶50

¶51

Date:24.10.2025

¶52

(susHrl ffifian r[n#cjcrl PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

¶53

This^judgement has been signed, dated and pronounced in open court.

¶54

-eJ

¶55

Date:24.10.2025

¶56

(susHrl KLflqAR RAiio'GD PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

¶57

Union Bank of India v. Sh Pardeep Singh Negi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India v. Sh Pardeep Singh Negi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases