Allowed

Punjab National Bank v. Ms.Shagun Sachdeva

DRT25 Aug 2026TA/458/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Punjab National Bank under Section 19 of the RDB Act. The court directed the builder to pay the outstanding loan amount as per the Tripartite Agreement terms, holding the builder liable since the borrowers did not take possession of the mortgaged flats.

What did the court decide?

Defendant No. 3 directed to pay Rs. 1,57,49,818/- along with interest @ 8.65% p.a. within 30 days, recoverable from sale of mortgaged properties or personal assets.

Punjab National Bank versus Ms.Shagun Sachdeva — Specific Performance | DRT (2026)

¶1

Beforc SUSHIL KUMAR^{RASTOGI,Presiding Offier} Debts RecovelY Tribunal-Il,^Delhi

¶2

TA l4sAl2O22 PUNJAB NATIONAT^{BANKVS MS. SHAGUN SACHDE\IA &} oRs

¶3

Reserued on =37,07.2026 Pronounced on : 25.08.2026

¶4

Punjab National Bank Vs.

¶5

-^{Applicant bank}

¶6

Ms. Shagun Sachdeva

¶7

Shri. Baljit Rai Sachdeva

¶8

M/s Pyramid Townships^{Private Limited - Defendants}

¶9

Present: Mr. Sunav Rastogi,^{Counsel for applicant} bank. Defendants are ex-parte, since,

¶10

09.04.2025.

¶11

FINAL ORDER

¶12

This original application has been^{filed by the} applicant bank, on 02.05.2022^{through Shri. Meghraj} Navariya, Officer of the applicant^{ban( under Section} 19 of the RDB Act,^{1993 againstthe defendantsfor} recovery of a sum of^{Rs.1,57,49,818/-togetherwith} cost, charges and^{pendentellite and futureinterest} @20.00o/o^{from date of filing of this O.A. till the} realization in full.

¶13

The brief facts of^{the caseare that at the request} of the defendant nos.l &^{2, the applicantbank} sanctioned two Housing^{Loan CreditFacility of} Rs.54,00,0001- ,vide sanction^{letter dated 18.04.2019} towards^purchase of Unit^{no.1706,Tower-2A,} Speedway Avenue,^{Jaypee Greens Sports City, GNIDA,} S.\

¶14

and

¶15

TA NO. 458/2022 2 Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh

¶16

Rs.1,05,57,000/-, vide its sanction letter dated 18.04.2019 towards purchase of Unit no. P-1806, 18h Floor, Tower-2A, Speedway Avenue, Jaypee Greens Sports City, GNIDA, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh. The defendants executed all necessary loaning documents on 26.04.2019 and27.04.2019. A Tripartite Agreement dated 26.04.2019 executed between defendant nos.l & 2 and defendant no.3 with the applicant bank. In order to secure the repayment of the first housing loan facility, the defendant nos.1 and 2 have mortgaged the flat bearing Unit no.1706, Tower-2A, Speedway Avenue, Jaypee Greens Sports City, GNIDA, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh in favour of the applicant bank. In order to secure the repayment ofthe second housing loan facility, the defendant nos.1 and 2 have mortgaged the flat bearing Unit no. P-1806, 18h Floor, Tower-2A, Speedway Avenue, Jaypee Greens Spofts City, GNIDA, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh in favour of the applicant bank.

¶17

It is further submitted that the defendants enjoyed and utilized thb toan 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. Therefore, the applicant bank served a legal notice dated 27.10.202L 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.

TANO. 45812022

On notice by this Tribunal, defendants failed to put appeirance at all, despite service. Accordingly, the defendants were proceeded against exparte dated 09.04.2025.

¶22

The applicant bank has filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Mr. Meghraj Navariya, Officer of the applicant bank as Annexure A-1 to Annexure A-12 which have gone unchallenged and un-rebutted. Hence, the case of the applicant bank stands fully established against the defendants with respect to nonpayment of EMI/ outstanding amount.

¶23

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the 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 6 of the Tripartite Agreement is as follows:-

¶24

"6. ff the bonower/s withdnw/s fiom tlte scheme or fail/s to pay the blane amount rcprcenting the differcne between the housing loan allowed by the Bank and the actual cost of the house/flat (including esalation) or di,e/s orallotmentof the tlat/hou* is othenvi* cancelledt llte enthe amount sbnding to the aedit of the funower/s (including matgin money and bonower/s contribution) will be rcfunded by the Builder to the Bank The Bank shall rcfund to the bonower/s blane, id any, after adiusting the entll ou&bnding dues,

TANO. 4s812022

includinginterest,o# and other amount

¶29

ruovenble by the bank fiom the bonower/s."

¶30

As per conditions contained in the Tripartite Agreement at 26.04.2019 at^para no.6, 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 whichhe} 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 and 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 moneyand also} certain EMIs to the bank and has^{got in returnnothing.} 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.

9-\

TA NO. 4s812022

In the light of the above^{discussions, the Original} Application deservei to be^{allowed againstthe} defendant no.3.

¶35

ORDER

¶36

I hereby allow^{this T.A. of the ApplicantBank and} direct the defendant^{no. 3 to pay to the applicant bank} within 30 days from^{today, a sum of Rs.1,57,49,818/-} along with cost,^{expenses and [email protected]} the date of filing^{of this O.A. which has becomeT'A till} the date of realization'

¶37

In case of^{failure to depositthe above amount} within the stipulated^{period, the same shall be} recovered from^{the sale of mortgaged propertiesi'e',} (i). Unit no.1706, Tower-2A,^{Speedway Avenue, Jaypee} Greens SporG^{City, GNIDA, Greater Noida,Uttar} Pradesh and^{(ii). Unit no. P-1806, 18s Floor, Tower-2A,} Speedway^{Avenue,Jaypee GreensSports City, GNIDA,} Greater Noida,^{UttarPradesh' In case of short fall, the} same shall^{be recoveredfrom the sale of personal} movable and^{immovableassets of the defendantno' 3}

¶38

Recovery^{Certificatebe issuedfofthwithandbe} sent to Recovery^{Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-Il'} Delhi.

¶39

The registry^{of this Tribunal is herebydirected to} issue free copy^{of the order and send the same to both} the^parties. $.

¶40

TANO. 458/2022 6

¶41

Parties are direct to appear before the Ld. Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi on 26.L0.2026. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶42

File be consigned to records.

¶43

Date :25.08.2026

¶44

sA (SUSHIL KUMAR RASTOGD PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

¶45

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

¶46

Date : 25.08.2026

¶47

E.\ (susHIL KUMAR RAsroGr) PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

Punjab National Bank v. Ms.Shagun Sachdeva

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab National Bank v. Ms.Shagun Sachdeva

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