Allowed

Union Bank of India (E-Corporation Bank) v. Mr. Piush Bhatia

DRT29 Jul 2026TA/957/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allowed an application by Union Bank of India under Section 19 of the RDB Act, 1993, for recovery of dues. The Court directed the builder-defendant to pay the outstanding loan amount, holding that since the borrowers did not receive possession and paid only margin money, directing the borrowers to pay would amount to double penalty.

What did the court decide?

Directing the builder-defendant to pay Rs. 37,35,739 along with costs and interest within 30 days, with alternative recovery from the mortgaged property and personal assets.

Union Bank of India (E-Corporation Bank) versus Mr. Piush Bhatia — Specific Performance | DRT (2026)

¶1

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

¶2

TA l9s7l2O23

¶3

uNroN BANK OF rNDrA (E-CORPORATTON BANK) VS MR. PIUSH BHATIA & ORS

¶4

Reserved on : 16.06.2O26

¶5

Pronounced on : 29.07.2026

¶6

Union Bank of India

¶7

(E- Corporation Bank)

¶8

-^{Applicant bank}

¶9

Vs.

¶10

Mr. Piush Bhatia

¶11

Smt. Sudahnshu Bhatia

¶12

M/s White House

¶13

M/s Vacational Education Foundation - Defendants

¶14

Present: Shri. Ujjwal Kumar, Counsel for applicant bank. Defendants are ex-pafte, since, 22.12.2025.

¶15

FINAL ORDER

¶16

This original application has been filed by the applicant bank, on 07.07.2018 through Mr.^{Kapil Dev,} Chief Manager of the applicant bank, under^Section19 of the RDB Act, 1993 against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.37,35,739l- together^{with cost,} charges and^{pendentellite} and future^interest @9.650lo from date of filing of this O.A. till the realization^{in full.}

¶17

The brief facts of the case are that at^{the request} of the defendant nos.1 & 2, the applicant^bank sanctioned a Housing Loan Facility of^{Rs.35.00 Lacsfor} purchasing the Under Construction flat i.e., Flat bearing No.4132, on 13h Floor, Tower No.4, Measuring Super area 1845 Sq. Ft. in "White Hotya!' Grou1^{Housing Plot}

¶18

¶19

TANO.9s7t2023 2

¶20

No.08, Choraosia Estate, Sector PI 1 & 2, at Greater Noida, District- Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P), vide sanction letter dated 11.03.2016. The defendants executed all necessary loaning documents on 26.03.2016. The aforesaid credit facility was secured by mortgage of the aforesaid property. A Tripartite Agreement dated 23.03.2016 executed between defendant no.1 and defendant no.3 with the applicant bank.

¶21

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. Hence, the account^{was classifiedas NPA} dated 3L.12.2017. Therefore, the applicant^bank served a demand notice dated 05.05.2018 to^the defendants, demanding the amount due as on^that date, but failed to recover the same.^Thus, the^present O.Aff.A. is^preferred by the applicant^{bank to recover} its dues.

¶22

On notice by this Tribunal, defendants^{failed to} put appearance at all, despite^publication. Accordingly, the defendants were^{proceeded againstexparte dated} 22.L2.2025.

¶23

The applicant bank^{has filed its evidenceby way} of affidavit of Mr. Kapil Dev, Chief^{Managerof the} applicant bank as Annexure^{A-1 to Annexure A-13} which have^gone unclplleqged and^un-rebutted. e"\

¶24

TANO.95712023 3

¶25

Hence, the case of the applicant bank stands fully established against the defendants with respect^to nonpayment of EMI/ outstanding amount.

¶26

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 borrower.^{Para 4 of the} Tripaftite Agreement is as follows:-

¶27

"4. Thatin the eventof the Builder/^land Owner violating the terms of this agtement and/or failing to compleE the construction of the^{flat in} time or ompleting dte ansfruction^{of the flat} but not handing over the^{possession of the flat} b tt e Borrower or completing the onstruction of the flat and handing over t{te^{posssion of} the same to the Bonower in time^{but not} executing and rqidertng the^sle dd/onveyane deed in rcspect^{of the sid tlat} in favour of the Borrower^{as per the agtement} execud between the Bullder/Land^{Owner and} the Bonower, or in the eventof^{dte anellation} of the agreement for whabver ruson/^bonower defaulting in the rcFyment of the^loan fnsbltment but beforc dre execution^{of the sle} deed/onveyane ded, the^{Builderfl-and} Owner undetbkes and agtees^{to rcfitm to the} Bank dircctly, all moneY rwived^fiom him/her/tlrcm, dircctly fiom^{tfie Bonowerand} also theamountdisbutd^{bythe Bankon behalf} of the Bonower fol^purcha* of^{the sid flat,}

9"\

TA NO. 9s712023

afur rcbining the^permissible rcductions, if any, as per the agr@ment b *ll enercd ina betwen the Builder/Owner and tfie Bonower, within a maximum^period of 90 days,'

¶32

As per conditions contained in the Tripartite Agreement at 23.03.2016 at^para no. 4, 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 borrowerhas made} default in repayment of the EMIs and therefore,^{as per} condition agreed between the^{parties, the builderis} 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^{perusalof 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^{violationof 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^{possessionof the flat. If the} borrower is directed to^{pay the amountwhich 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}

¶33

€.\

¶34

TANO.95712023 5

¶35

conditions it is only the builder who is liable to pay the defaulted amount to the applicant bank.

¶36

In the light of the above discussions, the Original Application deserves to be allowed against the defendant no.3.

¶37

ORDER

¶38

I hereby allow this T.A. of the Applicant Bank and direct the defendant no. 3 to^pay to the applicant bank within 30 days from today, a sum of Rs.37,35,7391along with cost, expenses and interest @09.650lo from the date of filing of this O.A. which has become T.A till the date of realization.

¶39

In case of failure to deposit the above amount within the stipulated period, the same shall be recovered from the sale of mortgaged property bearing Under Construction Flat No.4132, on 13s Floor, Tower No.4, Measuring Super area 1845 Sq. Ft. in "White House" Group Housing Plot No.08, Choraosia Estate, Sector PI 1 & 2, at Greater Noida, District- Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P). In case of short fall, the same shall be recovered from the sale of^personal movable and immovable assets of the defendant no. 3

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

ii-

¶43

TANO.9s7l2023⁶

¶44

Pafties are direct^{to appearbefore the Ld'} Recovery Officer, DRT-II,^{Delhion 29.09.2026' Pending}

¶45

IAs, if any, stand disPosed^of.

¶46

File be consigned to^records.

¶47

¶48

Date :29.07.2026

¶49

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

¶50

This^{judgement has been signed, datedand} pronounced in oPen court'

Date:29.07.2026

(s^

' -'1'1^"

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

Union Bank of India (E-Corporation Bank) v. Mr. Piush Bhatia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Bank of India (E-Corporation Bank) v. Mr. Piush Bhatia

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