Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mr. Ankoor Kumar

DRT22 Jun 2026TA/1982/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the bank's application under Section 19 RDB Act. Relying on a Tripartite Agreement, the court directed the builder to pay the outstanding dues as he was liable upon borrower default, with recovery via attachment of assets if unpaid.

What did the court decide?

Allowed application. Defendant No.2 directed to pay Rs.45,63,423 plus interest and costs within 30 days; recovery to commence against mortgaged property.

State Bank of India versus Mr. Ankoor Kumar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

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

¶2

TA No. 1982 OF 2023

¶3

STATE BANK OF INDIA VS ANKOOR KUMAR & ORS

¶4

Reserued on : 18,05.2026

¶5

Pronounced on t 22.06.2026

State Bank of India

-^{Applicant bank}

Vs.

Mr. Ankoor Kumar

¶10

Mls Universal Buildwell hlt. Ltd

¶11

Defendants

¶12

Present Mr. Pradeep Dhaka, Proxy Counsel for applicant bank. Defendants are expaft, since, 20.05.2025.

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 27.07.2020 through Mr. Pawan Kumar Sinha, Deputy Manager of the applicant bank, under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.45,63 ,4231together with cost, charges and pendentellite and future interest @9.55o/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 Home Loan Facility of Rs.40,42,0001-, vide sanction tetter dated 10.12.2014 for^purchasing propefi being Flat No.1903, Tower-G, Universal Aura, Sector-82, Gurgaon, Haryana from defendant no.Zlbuilder. The defendant no.1 executed all necessary loaning documents on L0.L2.20t4. To secure the due repayment in the aforesaid housing loan facility, the defendant no.1 has enlqfqd into an agreement to . fi',

¶16

¶17

TA NO. 1982 of 2023

¶18

moftgage of the aforesaid property. The defendant no.2 had issued no objection letter of creation of mortgage of the aforesaid property. A Tripartite Agreement dated L0.L2.2014 executed between the defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 with the applicant bank.

¶19

It is further 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. Hene, the account was classified as NPA on 31.05.2019. Therefore, the applicant bank served a legal demand notice dated 27.02.2020 to the defendants, demanding the amount due as on that date, but failed to recover the same. Thus, the present O.AfI.A. is preferred by the applicant bank to recover its dues.

¶20

On notice by this Tribunal, defendant no.l^put appearance through counsel and filed written statement but failed to file evidence. Thereafter, the defendant no.1 failed to^put appearance in the matter. Accordingly, the defendant no,1 was^proceeded against expafte on 20.05.2025. The defendant no.2 failed to put appearance at all, despite publication. Accordingly, the defendant no.2 was proceeded against exparte on 20.0s.2025

¶21

The applicant bank has field evidence filed by way of the affidavit of Mr. Pawan Kumar Sinha, Deputy Manager of applicant bank as Annexure-A/l to Annexure-A/10. X\

¶22

TA NO. 1982 of 2023 3

¶23

Heard the Ld. Counset 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 Tripartite Agreement with the builder along with the borrower. Para 2 of the Tripaftite agreement is as follows: -

¶24

"2. That the Builder agrees that it has no objection to the Borrower(s) mortgaging the said flat with proportionate share in land to the SBI as security for the sid loan agred to be advancd by the SBI for the purryse of purchase/construction of the sid flat. In the event of default in the repayment of loan and/or the Borrower(s) committing any other default which makes the Borrower(s) tiable for the repayment of the entire amount ouffianding in the said loan as rer the terms of the Loan Agrement executd betwen the Borower(Q and the SBI, the Builder shall, at the all of SBI, be under obligation to cancel the booking and pay all the amounB receivd by the Builder from the Borowe(s) or on behalf of the Borcower(s) to the SBL"

¶25

As per conditions contained in the Tripartite Agreement dated 10.12.2014 at para no.2 in case of default 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 borrow-e{}s taken the loan and^the I^sA:

,. i;'!:'t';-r,,

TA NO. 1982 of 2023

toan amount has been paid to the builder for construction of the flat. The applicant bank has not claimed that the builder in viotation of the terms and conditions has handed over the flat to the defendant no.l. 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 has got in return nothing. 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.

¶30

In the light of the above discussions, the^presentT.A. deserues to be allowed against the defendant^{no. 2.}

¶31

ORDER

¶32

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.45 ,63,4231' along with cost, expenses and interest @ 9.55%^from the date of filing of this O.A. which^{has becomeT.A. till} the date of realization.

¶33

In case of failure to deposit the above^amount within the stipulated^period, the^{same shall be} recovered from the sale of the^{mortgagedpropefi} bearing Flat No.1903, Tower-G,^{UniversalAura, Sector-} 82, Gurgaon, Haryana. tn Qq-'^{of shott fall, the same} '^9''

¶34

¶35

TA NO. 1982 of 2023

¶36

shall be recovered from the sale of personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant no. 2.

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

Pafties are directed to appear before the Ld. Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi on 24.08 .2026. Pending IAs, if dry, stand disposed of.

¶40

File be consigned to records.

¶41

Date :22.06.2026

¶42

t- (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI)^ PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

¶43

This^judgement has been signed, dated and

¶44

pronounced in open court.

Date :22.06.2026

!ex

(susHrL KUFTAR RASToGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

¶49

State Bank of India v. Mr. Ankoor Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mr. Ankoor Kumar

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