Allowed

State Bank of India v. Mrs. Swarnalata Rout

DRT18 Feb 2026TA/886/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by State Bank of India against a builder for recovery of a home loan amount. The court held that under the tripartite agreement, the builder was liable to repay dues after the borrower defaulted and did not receive possession or benefits of the loan.

What did the court decide?

The defendant No. 2 was directed to pay Rs. 79,11,831/- along with interest at 9.45% p.a. within 30 days; property sale directed for recovery in case of default.

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Swarnalata Rout — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

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

¶2

TA No.886 of 2022

¶3

STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs MRS. SWARNALATA ROUT & ANR

¶4

Reservedon z2L.OL.2O26

¶5

Pronounced on : 18.02.2025

State Bank of India

-^{Applicant bank}

Vs.

Mrs. Swarnalata Rout

¶10

The Managing Director, M/s Bestech India tut. Ltd.

¶11

Defendants

¶12

Present: Ms. Chinnmayee, proxy counsel for Shri JP Gupta, Counsel appears for applicant bank. Defendants are ex-parte since 13.06.2025.

¶13

FINAL ORDER

¶14

This original application has been filed by^the applicant ban( on 15.03.2020 through Shri^K.K. Sabharwal, Chief Manager of the applicant bank,^under Section 19 of the RDB Act,^{1993 against the defendantsfor} recovery of a sum of Rs.79,11,83U- consisting^of Rs.78,40,9071- and Rs.61,7221- beeing the debt^{due against} the defendants together with cost, charges^and pendentellite and future interest @ 10.75olo p.a. 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,^on 07.06.20L6, a Home Loan Facility of^{Rs.76,72,000/-for} purchasing of under construction apartment bearing no.1002, 10h Floor, Tower-A, Park View Ananda, Sector81, Gurgoan, Haryana to be developed and constructed by the defendant no. 2. Further, defendant no.1 was also allowed to avail additional loan of Rs.72,7891- for^paying the^premium for^{purchasinpgls,Bl} Life insurance^policy for -9

¶16

¶17

TANO.886 of 2022

¶18

protection of home loan borrower under the RinnRaksha scheme of the applicant bank. In order to avail the said loan facilities the defendant no. t has executed various loaning documents dated 07.06.2016. In order to created specific charge/lien upon the above said ProPeB, the defendant no.1 had^produced the original documents consisting of allotment letter dated 07.05.2016,^apartment buyers agreement dated 27.05.2016 along^{with payment} schedule, payment receipts of money deposited of^Rs.2 lacs dated 07.05.2016, call notice dated^{23.05.2016and no} objection certificate for^{creationof mortgage in favour of} the applicant bank dated 07.06.2016,^{all issued/executed} by the builder/defendant no. 2.^{A Tripartite agreement} dated 07.06.2016 was^{executed between defendantno.1,} applicant bank and defendant^{no. 2. Thereafter,the} defendant no.1 approached^{for advancing the home loan} account as demanded by defendant^{no. 2 whichwas} advanced by the applicant^{bankin favourof the defendant} no. 2. Further, the^part of the^{sanctiondof Fs-72,7891-} was also credited for the^{purchase of SBI life insurance} policy in the name of the defendant no. 1.

¶19

It is fufther submitted that^{the defendantsenjoyed} and utilized the Loan^{facility, but failed to maintain the} financial discipline and failed to^{repay the due amounts.} The applicant bank^{requestedthe defendants to regularize} the loan account by visits and^{letters, but there was no} response from the defendants,^{hence the home loan} account was classified as^{NPA on 31.01'2019and} accordingly the loan^{account of additional loan grantedto} defendant no.1 for^{purchase of SBI life policy was classified} as NPA. Therefore, the applicant^{bank served a legal} demand notice dated^{14.02.20L9and 12.03.2019 to the} defendants, demanding the amount^{due as on that date,} s)'

¶20

TANO.886 of 2022

¶21

¶22

but failed to recover the same. Thus, the present O.A. is preferred by the applicant bank to recover its dues.

¶23

On notice by this Tribunal, defendants failed to put appearance at all, despite dasti seruice and accordingly defendants were proceeded against expafte on 13.06.2025.

¶24

The applicant bank filed its evidence by way of the affidavit Shri K.K. Sabhanrual, Chief Manager, of the applicant bank as^paper no.1 to^paper no.120.

¶25

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 Tripartite^Agreement with the builder along with the borrowers.^{Para 2} of^the Tripartite Agreement is as follows:^-

¶26

"2. In the event of the default in the repayment of the loan and/ or the borrowers(s) committing any other^default which makes the borrowerc(s) liable for the^repayment of the entire amount outstanding in the sid^{loanas per the} terms of the loan agrement exsutd betwen^the borrower(s) and the SBI, the builder shall, at^{the call} of SBI, fu under oblEation to cancel the fuoking^{and pay all} the amounB rmived by the builder from the borrower(s) or on behalf of the borrower(s) to the SBI.^However, under such circumstances the bullder shall be entitled to rebin/forfeit an amount^quiualent to 10ok of the^{total sale} consideration and the balance amount shall be refundd^to the bank "

¶27

As per conditions contained in the Tripartite Agreement at 07.06.2016 gt^para no.2, in case of^default 9A-

¶28

¶29

TANO.886 of 2022

¶30

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 ofthe 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 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.

¶31

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

¶32

ORDER

¶33

I hereby allow this O.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.79,11,831/- along

TA NO.886 of 2022

with cost, expenses and interest @9.45olo from the date of filing of this O.A. which has become T.A. till the date of realization.

¶38

In case of failure to deposit the above amount within the stipulated^period, the same shall be recovered from the sale of the property bearing 2BHK+2T apartment bearing no.1002, 10h Floor, Tower-A, Park View Ananda, Sector81, Gurgoan, Haryana. In case of short fall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant no. 2.

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

Parties are directed to appear before the Ld. Recovery Officer, DRT-II, Delhi on 20.04.2026. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.

¶42

File be consigned to records. ..**..-_ !e\

¶43

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

¶44

Date : 18.02.2026

¶45

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

¶46

Date : 18.02.2026

¶47

sn (susHrl KUMAR nA#dcrl PRESIDING OFFICER DRT-II, Delhi

¶48

State Bank of India v. Mrs. Swarnalata Rout

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Bank of India v. Mrs. Swarnalata Rout

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