Allowed

Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank) v. Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh

DRT22 Jun 2026TA/1431/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the original application filed by Canara Bank for recovery of housing loan dues and interest. The court directed the builder defendant to repay the amount as the bank had advanced funds directly to the builder under a tripartite/tripartite-like agreement where the builder held the borrower's money in trust.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Defendant No. 2 to pay Rs. 52,37,525.99 with interest and costs within 30 days; recovery from sale of mortgaged property or assets of Defendant No. 2.

Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank) versus Mr… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

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

¶2

TA No. 1431 OF 2022

¶3

CANARA BANK (SYNDTCATE BANK) VS MR. ArAy KUMAR SINGH & ORS

¶4

Reserued on : 19,05.2026

¶5

Pronounced on z 22.O16.2026

¶6

Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank)

¶7

-^{Applicant bank}

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh

¶10

Unibera Development h/t Ltd

¶11

Defendants

¶12

Present: Ms. Chitra Malhotra, Proxy Counsel for applicant bank. Defendants are expaft, since, 08. 1 L.2024.

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 01.03.2021 through Mr. Kaushik Majumdar, Chief Manager of the applicant bank, under Section 19 of the RDB and Financial Institution Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.52,37,525.99 together with cost, charges and pendentellite and future interest @10.90o/o from date of filing of this O.A. till the realization in full.

¶15

The brief facts of the case are that at the request of the defendant no.1, the applicant bank sanctioned a Housing Loan Facility of Rs.44,7O,OOOl-for purchasing propefi unit no. Flat No TL-9041L455, Block-E, Group Housing Project Unibera Tower, AT FH-16F, Sector-l Greater Noida (West) U.P, vide sanction letter dated 07.10.2015 against the aforesaid^property. The defendant no.1 executed-"*ll necessary loaning

¶16

¶17

TA NO. l43l of 2022

¶18

documents on 04.06.2015, 05.10.2015 and 07.L0.2015. The defendant no.2 has issued permission to mortgage to applicant bank. As per the request of defendant no.1, the applicant bank granted Rs.22,28 ,7691- being paft of total housing loan of Rs.44,70,000/-. It is submitted that on 07.10.2015, defendant no.1 has entered into Quadripaftite Agreement including appticant bank.

¶19

It is further submitted that the defendants enjoyed and utilized the Loan facility, but failed to maintain the financial discipline and faited 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. Hene, the account was classified as NPA on 30.09.2019. Therefore, the applicant bank serued a legal demand notice dated 07.L1.2019 to the defendants, demanding the amount due as on that date, but failed to recover the same. Thus, the present O.Afl-.A. is preferred by the applicant bank to recover its dues.

¶20

On notice by this Tribunal, defendants failed to put appearance at alt, despite publication. Accordingly, the defendants were^proceeded against exparte on 08.1L.2024.

¶21

The applicant bank has field evidence filed by way of the affidavit of Mr. Kaushik Majumdar, Chief Minager of applicant bank as Annexure- 1 to Annexure-26.

¶22

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 Quadripaftite Agreement with the buildql_flong with the borrower. s)

¶23

TA NO. l43l of 2022 3 Para 13 & 16 of the Tripartite agreement is as

¶24

follows: -

¶25

" L3. The BUILDER/UNDLORD/AUTHORIW undertakes that till such time the House/Flat/plot is legalty conveyed in favour of the BORROWE& they will be holding the money receivd from the BORROWER as well as the loan disburced by the BANK on fuhalf of the BORROWER in TRUST for THE BANK and in case of cancellation of the Booking for any reason of whaboever naturg the amount rrceivd from the BORROWER and THE BANK will tu refundd to THE BANK with interest."

¶26

"16. That in event of default by the BORROWE& THE BANK may at ib disretion enforce the security by sale a nd the B UILD ER/U N D LOR D/AUTH ORITY sha ll accept the new purchase of the House/Flat/Plot in place of BORROWER,'

¶27

As per conditions contained in the Quadripaftite Agreement dated 07.L0.2015 at para no.13 & 16 in case of defautt 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 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 ove-r-[he flat to the defendant a'

¶28

¶29

TA NO. l43l of 2022

¶30

no.l. The borrower has not taken any amount in his account and the entire amgunt 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 terrns and conditions it is only the builder who is liable to pay the defaulted amount to lhe applicant bank.

¶31

In the light of the above discussions, the present T.A. deserues to be allowed against the defendant no. 2.

¶32

ORDER

¶33

I hereby allow this T.A. of the applicant bank and direct the defendant no. 2 to pay to the applicant bank within 30 days from today, a sum of Rs.52 ,37,525.99 along with cost, expenses and interest @ 9.70o/o from the date of filing of this O.A. which has become T.A. till the date of realization.

¶34

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 Flat No. Tt-904, Block-E, Group Housing Project Unibera Tower, AT FH-16F, Sector-l Greater Noida (West) U.P. In case of short fall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of^personal movable and immovable assets of the qgf:{unt no. 2.

9'\

TA NO. l43l of 2022

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

¶39

The registry of this Tribunal is hereby directed to issue free copy of the order and send the same to both the parties.

¶40

Parties are directed to appear before the Ld. Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi on 24.08.2026. Pending IAs, if ony, stand disposed of.

¶41

File h consigned to records.

¶42

.. -4''!-". ...*, e.I '6

¶43

Date :22.06.2026 (SUSHIL KT MAR RASIOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

¶44

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

¶45

Date :22.06.2026

¶46

':*6**n (susHrl KUM-AR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, DCIhi

¶47

Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank) v. Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank) v. Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh

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