Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's original application. It held both the borrower and developer jointly liable despite the developer's plea of non-execution of the sale deed due to alleged disputes with the borrower.
Defendants 1 & 2 jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.32,54,001/- with interest; recovery certificate issued.
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.
IN THE DEBTSRECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDEMBAD DATED THISTHE15THDAY OF MAY,2026
PRESENT:SH' RAMESHWAR KOTHE,B'Com' L'LB' (Hons')' M'A' PRESIDINGOFFICER
Original ApplicationNo: 147 OF 2022
STATEBANK OF INDIA, SARB, Koti,HYderabad RepresentedbY Chief Manager {Amendedas per OrdersDated30'10'2023 in I'A'No'382ot 2023}
.....ApPlicant
Versus
Also at:
MUKUL BHARGAVA S/o. M.Lall, R/o'203/A, Mud fortAPartments, Plot No.211,Mud fort, Sikh Village,HYderabad- 500009
M/S.INDUEASTERN PROVINCE PRO]ECTS PRIVATELIMITED ?, (dpv of EmbassyUnityConsortium) ^ A Companyrncotpotatea underthe Companies Ac' 1956 iavinjits Registered Office at 1009'13-thPhase' x J kit-pur rv, Mlocna t- wla t kaj g i ri District- 50 007 {Impleadedas Per orders ot::o'10'zr'I'A No'382/23}' "" "Defendants
: Mr. VeeraShiva Kumar Counselfor the APPlicant Counsel forDefendant No'1 : Ex-parte : Mr. AbhaYSingh Counselfor Defendant No'2 gft("'\
OA. No. 747 /2022
:: ORDER::
OA. No. t4712022
3
Consequently, the Applicant Bank issued alegalnoticedated 20.72.2021 demanding payment of Rs.24,L4,258/-along with applicable interest and other charges.However, thenotice sent to the Defendant No.1 was returned with thepostalendorsement "Addressee Left". The Applicant Bank alsorelied onClause 12 of the amended Tripartite Agreement,under whichthe Bank shall have the first charge over the subject flat at alltimes. It was alleged that both the Defendants acted in collusion with anintention toevade repayment of the debt due to the Bank andwere thereforejointly and severally llable to repay the outstanding loan amount.Hence,the present OA is being filed.
OA. No. L47 /2022
service tax and VAT, together with lgyo interest. It asserts that the flat was completed and handed over to Defendant No. 1 tong back, but the sare deed was not registered since fu consideration was not paid. Defendant No. 2 claims that it is an unpaid seller and has no obligation to register the sale deed or hand it over to the Bank until full payment is received. It is further contended that under Clause t7/72 ot the Tripartite Agreement, the Bank,s exclusive charge over the flat arises onry upon execution of the sare deed, and since no sare deed was registered, the Bank has no charge over the property, Defendant No.2 also relies on Clause 14 of the Tripartite Agreement entitling cancellation of allotment and forfeiture of 2oyo of the sale consideration. In fact, the applicant should have guided the 2"d defendant for cancellation of the allotment flat booked in the name of the borrower in place of the OA proceedings. Accordingly, Defendant No. 2 prays that the O.A. be dismissed with exemplary costs.
- In order to substantiate the defence, the authorised signatory, Mr. p. Nagarjuna Rao, on behalf of Defendant No. 2, examined himself as DW-1 and marked no documents.
OA. No. L4712022
duly executingand registeringa SateDeed in his/her favour on receipt of theloan amount sanctionedand grantedby the BanktotheBorroweranddelivertheoriginalsaleDeedtothe Bank upon its executionand registration"'However'the2nd defendant developercommittedbreach of the Agreementin handing overtheregisteredsaledeedtotheapplicantbankdespitereceiving the sanctionedloan amount. Therefore,the 2nd defendant-developer along with the1't defendantborrower is equally liable to pay the OA claim.
a per contra, the learned counsel for the 2nd defendantcontends that it admitsexecutionoftheTripartiteAgreement,butreliesonClauseT of the Agreementto submit that DefendantNo'1 is squarely liable to repay the amountsdisbursedto the developer' Learnedcounsel further claims thatsince the sale deed was never registeredfor want of fullpayment, the Bank has no chargeover the flat' and that it is merely an unpaidseller with no liability towards the Bank' Accordingly, itpraysfor dismissalof the O'A' with exemplarycosts'
Whether theApplicantBank is entitled for the OA claimagainstthe Defendants1 and 2?
OA, No, 747 12022
towards the sale consideration. Similarly, the 2nd defendant has not placed any material on record about the action taken if any, for recovery of the alleged dues from the 1st defendant borrower or for repossession of the Flat. Therefore, in the absence of any concrete evidence in respect of the aleged dispute between the defendants 1 and 2, the 2nd defendant cannot.take shelter on the dispute with the 1st defendant as a ground for non-execution and registration sale deed. Accordingly, the defence of the 2nd defendant is baseless and contrary to the terms of the Tripartite Agreement. In view of the breach of the terms of the Tripartite Agreement, both the defendants are riabre to pay the oA craim to the appricant bank. such is the situation, Evidence Affidavit of AW.1 coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.19 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the defendants 1 & 2. Hence, I hold that the Defendants 1 & 2 are join y and severaly riabre to pay the oA craim to the Appricant Bank with future interest and costs.
as under: -
OA. No. L47l2OZ2
7
PRESIDING OFFICER
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled to the Original Application claim against Defendants 1 and 2?
State Bank of India
Mukul Bhargava
Indu Eastern Province Projects Private Limited
Sh Rameshwar Kotha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
