AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
13.07.2026 Hon'ble Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain
I.A. No.922/2022 (application for condonation of delay filed by appellant)
It is stated that there is a delay of 77 days in filing the appeal due to the reasons as stated in the application. After considering all facts, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application is accordingly allowed. I.A. No.923/2022 (application for exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned judgment)
The counsel for the appellant stated that the appellant has already filed the certified copy of the impugned judgement and as such the application has become infructuous. Accordingly the application is dismissed as infructuous.
The appellant filed O.A. bearing no.332/2018 titled as State Bank of India V Surjit Das & another which is stated to be pending before DRT-II, Delhi. The O.A. bearing no.332/2018 was allowed vide final order dated 31.08.2022 for a sum of Rs.48,23,245.53 along with interest as mentioned in the final order. It was directed that the decretal amount shall be recovered from the sale of the property of the respondent no.2, besides other directions. DRT-II, Delhi also gave liberty to recover the decretal amount from the sale of the charged property in case of execution of sale deed in favour of the respondent no.1 on completion of project and on failure on the part of respondent no.1 to pay the decretal amount.
It is appearing that the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 was the borrower and the respondent no.2/defendant no.2 was the builder. There was default in the repayment of the loan amount. The counsel for the appellant referred the Tripartite Agreement executed among the parties, dated 16.08.2014, and in particular clause 9, 10 and 18 which are reproduced as under:-
9.That the Borrower(s) shall pay all charges, duties, taxes in respect of the said flat imposed or payable to the Builder / Developer and or to Corporation or any other Government Department / Authority in respect of the said flat and the SBI shall not be liable or responsible in any manner whatsoever or howsoever for the same.
10.That the Borrower(s) agrees and acknowledges to keep the SBI indemnified against any loss or damage incurred by it in the event of failure of the Borrower(s) to honour or to meet any of its obligations under this Agreement in connection with the sanctioning of the loan in respect of the said flat.
18.That this Agreement shall not affect in any manner whatsoever the duties and obligations of the Borrower(s) and the terms and conditions agreed to by the Borrower(s) in the Loan Agreement and other documents executed in favour of SBI shall remain binding upon the Borrower(s).
The counsel for the appellant after referring the above clauses stated that the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 had also pledged to repay the loan amount and DRT has passed no decree or order against respondent no.1/defendant no.1. It is submitted that the respondent no.2 has not executed any title document in favour of the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 and the loan was released in favour of the respondent no.2/defendant no.2. It also appearing that it was construction-linked loan and the appellant has released the entire loan amount in favour of respondent no.2/defendant no.2 without ascertaining the extent of construction made by the respondent no.2/defendant no.2. DRT in the impugned order has also referred to the relevant clause of the Tripartite Agreement dated 16.08.2014. The perusal of the impugned order reflects that DRT has considered all the relevant facts, particularly the Tripartite Agreement, and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order which requires interference by this Tribunal. There is no merit in the appeal and is accordingly dismissed.