Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's application for recovery of dues from the builder-developer under a tripartite agreement. The court held that the builder is liable to refund the amount to the bank if the borrower defaults and lacks possession of the flat.
Directed defendant no.2 to pay Rs.26,50,859/- along with cost and interest.
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.
Before SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Officer Debts Recovely Tribunal-Il, Delhi
TANo.4L4l2022
INDIAN BANK VS DAL,EET SINGH & ANR.
Reserved on =27.0t-.2026 Pronounced on =24.O2.2026
Indian Bank
-Applicant bank
V,s.
Present: Shri Satyam Khare, Counsel appears for applicant bank. Defendants are ex-parte since 31.08.2023.
FINAL ORDER
This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 14.06.2018 through Smt. Anshu Singh, Principal Officer of the applicant bank, under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.26,50,859/- together with cost, charges andpendentellite and future interest @ 9.600lop.a. from date of filing of this O.A. till the realization in full.
"il
TANO.4l4of2022 2
be created of the above said property (equitable moftgage has to be created after execution ofproposed sale deed). The above said housing loan was sanctioned under construction linkplan and on the request of the defendant no.1 and demand letter raised by the defendant no.2, the applicant bank has disbursed the amount of Rs.24,00,384/- out of sanctioned limit of Rs.28,00,000/-. In order to avail the said loan facility the defendants have executed various loaning documents dated 15.10.2014. Defendant no.1 availed the above said loan facility and respondent no.2 finally received the above said disbursed amount against residential unit allotted by it to defendant no. 1. A Tripartite Agreement dated 15.10.2014 was executed between defendant no.1, applicant bank and defendant no. 2.
TANO.4l4of2022
J
"If the borrower desires to withdraw his appliationfor the atlotment of the house/flat/apaftmentor if he fails to pay the balance amount, representing thedifference between the loansanctioned by the bank and the actual purchase price of the flat/apartment, the entire amount aduancd by the bank withinterest will be refunded by the developer/promoter to thebank forthwith.The developer will refund surplusif anyto the borrowerafter deducting there form suchamount as may be recoverable from the borrower inaccordancewith the provisions apptiable and thereupon alland every interest,the furrower or his heirsmay havein the said flat/apartmen| shatt stand cease in the event ofthe death of the borrower, the developer/promotermay permit his lqal heirs to have continued the interstin the flat/apartment if they immdntely deposit withthe developer/promoter the amount refunded to thebank as providdherein and undertake topay to the developer/promoterall such further sum or sums as would have beenpayable by the bonower in accordance with theRules in force"
I I I I 1 I I I I I I
TANO.4l4of2022 4
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. More over, from theperusal of the entire facts it is apparent that the borrower has taken the loan and the loan amount has beenpaid to the builder for construction of the flat. The applicant bank has not claimed that the builderin violation of the terms and conditions has handed over the flat to the defendant no.1. The borrower has nottaken any amount in his account and the entire amounthas beenpaid to the buiHer. In addition to this theborrower has also paid the margin money to the builder andalso paid certain EMIs as mentioned by the applicant bank. The borrower has notgot thepossession of the flat. If the borrower is directed topay the amountwhich has been actuallypaid to the builder this will amountdouble penalty on the borrower. The borrower has received no money and has stillpaid the margin money andalso ceftain EMIs to the bank and hasgot inreturn nothing.In such circumstances and asper agreed termsand conditions it is only the builder who isliable topay the defaulted amount to the applicant bank.
In the light of the above discussions, thepresent T.A. deserves to be allowed against defendantno. 2.
OR.DER
i I I I I I I i I I i ; i I I I I I I
I ; ; i tl. I I I I I I l I I I I I i i I I I ' I I I i i I i j
I I i i i i I I I t I I I I
TANO.4l4of2022 5
within 30 days from today, a sum ofRs.26,50,859/- along with cost, expenses and interest @9.600/o from the date of filing of this O.A. whichhas becomeT.A. till the date of realization.
File be consigned to records.
SA
Date:24.02.2026
(susHrl KUMAR AnSrOCr) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi
Thisjudgement has been signed, datedand pronounced in open court.
Date :24.02.2026
9). -'\ I (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi
P
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the builder is liable to refund the loan amount to the bank in default of repayment by the borrower when the borrower lacks possession.
Whether the applicant bank is entitled to recover dues from the builder versus the borrower under the tripartite agreement.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
INDIAN BANK
DALJEET SINGH
IDEA BUILDERS AT LTD.
SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
