IN THE HON’BLE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –I, NEW

DELHI
T.A NO. 1092 OF 2023
OA NO. 163 OF 2022
IN THE MATTER OF:

UNION BANK OF INDIA APPLICANT

VERSUS

JAPINDER SINGH & ORS DEFENDENTS

INDEX

S. No. Particulars Page

1 Written Statement on behalf of

defendant’s no. 1 & 2.
2 Supporting affidavits

3 List of Documents along with

documents

Dated:
Delhi.
DEFENDANT’s no. 1&2
Through

MANOJ SHUKLA & ASSOCIATES

(ADVOCATES)
Ch.no. 593, GF, (W. Wing)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi-54
bnwlawfirm@gmail.com
MOB. 8810661366.
 IN THE HON’BLE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –I, NEW
DELHI
T.A NO. 1092 OF 2023
OA NO. 163 OF 2022
IN THE MATTER OF:

UNION BANK OF INDIA APPLICANT

VERSUS

JAPINDER SINGH & ORS DEFENDENTS

WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE

DEFENDANTS NO. 1 & 2, TO THE O.A. FILED BY THE
APPLICANT BANK.
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS AND SUBMISSIONS:-

1. That the present Application of the applicant

Bank is not maintainable in eyes of law. Hence,
the same is liable to be dismissed.

2. Defendant’s No.1&2 will be henceforth be

mentioned as “Defendant’s”.

3. The Applicant's present application at the time

of filing this application lacks the necessary
and requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate upon
the matter by this hon’ble TRIBUNAL.
According to The Gazette of India, specifically
CG-DL-E-06102022-239351 dated-04-10-2022,
it is established that the jurisdiction over
 Dilshad Garden Police station falls within the
purview of Debts Recovery Tribunal No. 1.

4. The current application is time-barred, in

accordance with the statutory limitation
period of three years from the date of the
initial debt default.

5. That the certificate under Section 2A(b) and

2A(c) of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act,
1891 annexed by the applicant bank in
support of its annexures is not proper on
the following grounds:

a. The certificate does not specify the

particular branch or office of the bank
that uses the Finacle software system.
The certificate should clearly identify the
specific branch/office that maintains the
relevant records.

b. The certificate only states the generic

safeguards adopted by the "system" but
does not confirm if these safeguards are
actually implemented at the specific
branch/office whose records are
produced.
c. There is no mention of the specific period
during which the printouts relate to. The
certificate should certify the integrity of
the system for the relevant period
pertaining to the printouts.

d. The certificate does not identify or list the

specific documents/printouts that have
been provided and certified. The
certificate should clearly specify the
documents it pertains to certify.

e. The certificate only has a generic

verification statement and does not
confirm that the specific printouts
provided were correctly and accurately
generated from the relevant data.

f. The certificate is not signed by the

relevant branch manager/person in-
charge of computer system of the
branch/office whose records are produced
and as prescribed by Section 2A (b) in
THE BANKERS' BOOKS EVIDENCE ACT,
1891. It is signed by the Chief Manager
who has not been shown to be the
competent authority.
 g. The certificate does not specify the
specifications of the computer and printer
used.

h. The certificate does not mention the date

and time of printout of the relevant
documents.

i. The certificate does not bear the signature

of person in-charge of the computer
system.

All these defects render the certificate under

Section 2A(b) and 2A(c) of the Bankers' Books
Evidence Act, 1891 as to be improper and
inadmissible as per required law and therefore,
consequently the annexures of the Applicant
Bank are also inadmissible as per law.
Therefore, the application of the applicant bank
is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.

6. The Applicant Bank has omitted to append the

requisite Section 65B certificate, as mandated
by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in support of
the enclosed account statement accompanying
the present application.
7. That the Applicant Bank, Defendant No 1,2 &3
entered into tripartite agreement dated
29.07.2013 executed between the Applicant
Bank and all the Defendant’s which clearly
identify defendant no.1&2 availing home loan
for purchasing an under constructed flat
bearing Unit no. D-0701, area 1500sq. feet on
7 t h floor in tower D in the housing project
“Ajnara Le- Garden”.HENCE stressed that
Ajnara Realtech Limited i.e. Defendant no.3 has
failed to perform the essentials of the contract
which was obliged on him according to the
terms & condition of the agreement agreed
upon by constructing the above mentioned
building and by delivering the possession of
said flat in limited stipulated time to Defendant
No.1&2 as per condition No.3 of Page No.3 of
agreement dated 22.07.2013.

3. “ that in the event of the borrower

failing to complete the sale transaction
and obtain a registered sale deed in his
favour, the builder/land owner
undertakes and agrees to return all the
amount received by him/it to the bank in
connection with the amount disbursed by
the bank to the borrower for purchase of
the flat in question.”
8. That Defendant No.1&2 are not responsible to
make any payment to Applicant Bank as no
registered sale deed was executed in favour of
Defendant No.1&2 qua the said flat nor
possession of the said flat was ever delivered to
the Defendant No.1&2 in-spite of several
requests to the Defendant No 3.Therefore the
Defendant No .3 is responsible to make
payment to the applicant and Defendant
No.1&2 are not at all responsible for any
payment to the Applicant Bank.

9. That the said loan amount never disbursed into

the Defendant No.1&2 account but it was
disbursed into Defendant No.3 and because of
that the whole liability to repay the said loan is
on Defendant No.3.

10. That after the tripartite agreement dated

29.07.2013 certain liability to repay the loan
amount is on Defendant No.1&2, it is limited
till the time when possession of flat is handed
over to the Defendant No.1&2 other than this
the whole liability to repay the said loan is on
Defendant No.3. that as per agreement between
 the Defendant No.1&2 and the defendant no. 3
the possession of said flat will be handed over
to defendant no.1 &2 on 04.01.2017, but
defendant no. 1&2 did not get the possession of
the said flat. Hence liability to repay loan is
upon Defendant No.3 to repay the said loan.

11. That it is further submitted that as per

Tripartite Agreement dated 29.07,2023, that in
the event of the borrower and or builder/land
owner failing to complete the sale transaction
and registration thereof as per the agreement
between builder/land owner and borrower, the
builder/land owner undertakes and agrees to
return all the moneys received by him, in
connection with the amount disburse by the
bank to the borrower for the purchase of flat in
question with interest to the bank.

12. That Defendant No.1&2 filed and Consumer

Compliant before the Hon’ble Consumer
Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi vide
case no. CC/1942/2017, against the applicant
and defendant no. 3. That it is worth to
mention here that after repeated notice issued
 to applicant by the consumer forum. Applicant
did not appear before the forum and because of
that same was proceeded ex-parte.

13. That Applicant Bank never issued any notice

for declaration of non-performing of account of
defendant no. 1&2, this violate guidelines of
RBI and the principles of natural justice .

14. That the applicant Bank has not come with

clean hands to this Hon'ble DRT and has also
suppressed material and true facts from this
Hon'ble DRT. Hence, the present Application is
liable to be dismissed.

15. That the Alleged AR of the applicant bank is not

duly and lawfully authorized, hence, present
application cannot be read and same is not
admissible as per law.

16. That applicant bank has not followed the

process of law and declaration of account as
NPA and measure adopted by the applicant
 bank was contrary and was not in accordance
with law and same is liable to be set aside and
actual status of the property is liable to be
restored.

17. That applicant bank has falsely and wrongfully,

classified the accounts as NPA and is against
the rule and regulation laid down by the
Reserve Bank of India.

18. That there has been serious procedural

irregularities on the part of the bank as the
Applicant Bank is no exception to has to the
instruction issued by the National Housing
Bank since they have statutory force under
section 14(k) of the 1987 Act ,which enables
providing guidelines to housing financing
institution .

19. That applicant wants to take the undue

advantage of its own wrongs and application of
the bank is nothing but the bundle of lies and
he has been abusing the process of law.
20. That there are material contradiction in the list
of dates and events mentioned in the original
application along with event mentioned in the
OA.

21. That the Verification clause of Original

Application are contrary and do not disclose
each para or correct para therein.

22. That the Applicant Bank has made up the false

story in this Application and the same has been
filed to cause harassment to the answering
defendants in the false proceedings. Hence, the
present Application is liable to be dismissed.

23. That the suit has been filed just to harass and
blackmail the defendants, same is abuse of
process of law. It is stated that the applicant
bank himself is guilty of not adopting the
proper checks and balances and did not take
appropriate legal opinion, which directly affects
defendant’s.
24. That the applicant bank not provided the
legible and readable copy of the document
annexed in their application to the answering
defendants. That some documents are also
missing from the present application.

25. That the present OA is not filed by the

competent person and same is inadmissible as
per law.

26. That the said loan was never classified as NPA

as per proper procedure and rules. Therefore
present suit is not maintainable in the eyes of
law.

27. That the answering Defendant no.1&2 have no mala

fide intentions and ulterior motives while taking the
said loan. It is submitted that answering defendants
are not willful defaulters in repayment of said loan but
due to the reasons as aforesaid. That the answering
defendants are not liable to pay any amount to the
applicant bank.
28. That the no notice of the alleged amalgamation was
ever served to the answering defendants. Moreover, at
the time of taking the loan no consent was taken from
the answering defendants or no information was
shared with the answering defendants.

PARA WISE REPLY:

1. That the content of Paras no. 1-2 are the matter of

record hence, need no reply. However, it is
submitted that the Alleged AR of the applicant
bank is not duly and lawfully authorized .

2. That the contents of para no. 3 are false, frivolous,

misconceived, concocted, misrepresented and wrong
hence, denied. Each and every allegation and
averment made in this para is specifically denied
except the content which is the matter of record. It
is submitted that this Hon’ble tribunal does not
have right to entertain this present application. It is
further submitted that contents of above noted
preliminary objections and submissions be read as
part and parcel reply to this para, same are not
repeated here for the sake of brevity.

3. That the contents of para no. 3(A) are false,

frivolous, misconceived, concocted, misrepresented
and wrong hence, denied. Each and every allegation
 and averment made in this para is specifically
denied except the content which is the matter of
record.

4. That the contents of para no. 4 are false, frivolous,

misconceived, concocted, misrepresented and wrong
hence, denied. Each and every allegation and
averment made in this para is specifically denied
except the content which is the matter of record. It
is submitted that the current application is
time-barred, in accordance with the statutory
limitation period of three years from the date
of the initial debt default.

5. That the contents of para no. 5(1) are matter of

record, hence, need no reply.

6. That the contents of para no. 5(2) are false,

frivolous, misconceived, concocted, misrepresented
and wrong hence, denied. Each and every allegation
and averment made in this para is specifically
denied except the content which is the matter of
record. It is submitted that the Alleged AR of the
applicant bank is not duly and lawfully
authorized. It is further submitted that contents of
above noted preliminary objections and submissions
 be read as part and parcel reply to this para, same
are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.

7. That the contents of para no. 5(3) are false,

frivolous, misconceived, concocted, misrepresented
and wrong hence, denied. Each and every allegation
and averment made in this para is specifically
denied except the content which is the matter of
record. It is submitted that the as per documents
annexure P-3 by the applicant bank rate of interest
was 10.25% PA. That applicant bank did not
intimated the defendant no.1&2 regarding the
floating rate of interest. Further it is submitted that
applicant bank did not enclosed other documents
mention in the said para. It is further submitted
that contents of above noted preliminary objections
and submissions be read as part and parcel reply to
this para, same are not repeated here for the sake of
brevity.

8. That the contents of para no. 5(4) are matter of

record, hence, need no reply.

9. That the contents of para no. 5(5)-5(6) are false,

frivolous, misconceived, concocted, misrepresented
and wrong hence, denied. Each and every allegation
and averment made in this para is specifically
 denied except the content which is the matter of
record. It is further submitted that contents of
above noted preliminary objections and submissions
be read as part and parcel reply to this para, same
are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.

10. That the contents of para no. 5(7) are matter of

record, hence, need no reply.

11. That the contents of para no. 5(8) - 5(12) are false,
frivolous, misconceived, concocted, misrepresented
and wrong hence, denied. Each and every allegation
and averment made in this para is specifically
denied except the content which is the matter of
record. It is submitted that respondent 1& 2 used to
pay regular installments towards the said loan. That
is also submitted that defendant no. 1 &2 are not
liable to pay any amount towards the said loan.
That it is also submitted that the applicant issued
legal notice dated 11.02.2022 and defendant no.
1&2 also replied for the same. That defendant no.
1& 2 has sent a reply of legal notice dated
22.02.2022. That it is also submitted that the
defendant’s no. 1&2 are not liable to pay any
amount towards the loan not for any interest
claimed by applicant bank. It is submitted that the
said loan account should not have been categorized as
 Non-Performing Asset. It is further submitted that the
said loan account is running and regular payments have
been made by the defendants. It is submitted that
applicant has been misusing and abusing the
process of law and he is not entitled to any relief as
prayed herein. It is submitted that application of the
applicant be dismissed with heavy and exemplary
cost.

12. That the contents of para no. 6 to 7 are the relief (s)
sought and interim relief(s) demanded by applicant
are false, frivolous, misconceived, concocted,
misrepresented and wrong hence, denied. Each and
every allegation and averment made in this para is
specifically denied except the content which is the
matter of record.

13. That the content of para no. 8 are false, frivolous,

misconceived, concocted, misrepresented and wrong
hence, denied. Each and every allegation and
averment made in this para is specifically denied
except the content which is the matter of record. It
is submitted that defendant no 1&2 filed and
consumer compliant before the Hon’ble
Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission,
New Delhi vide case no. CC/1942/2017,
against applicant and defendant no. 3. That it
 is worth to mention here that after repeated
notice issued to applicant by the consumer
forum. Applicant did not appeared before the
forum and because of that same was
proceeded ex-parte.

14. That the content of para no. 9-10 are legal paras
hence need no reply.

PRAYER:

A) It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that

this Hon’ble DRT be pleased to dismiss the
present OA of the Applicant in the interest of
the justice.

B) Any other or further order/relief(s) which this

Hon'ble DRT may deem fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the present case
may kindly be passed in favor of the answering
defendants and against the Applicant.

Dated:
Delhi.
DEFENDANTS
Through

MANOJ SHUKLA & ASSOCIATES

(ADVOCATES)
Ch.no. 593, GF, (W. Wing)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi-54
bnwlawfirm@gmail.com
MOB. 8810661366.
VERIFICATION:-

We, the above named defendants no. 1 to 2 state on

solemn affirmation that the contents of the present
reply are true and correct to my own knowledge and
the legal advice received. And the Last para is a
prayer to this Hon'ble DRT.

Verified at Delhi on this day of November,

2023.

Defendants
 IN THE HON’BLE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –I, NEW
DELHI
T.A NO. 1092 OF 2023
OA NO. 163 OF 2022
IN THE MATTER OF:

UNION BANK OF INDIA APPLICANT

VERSUS

JAPINDER SINGH & ORS DEFENDENTS

AFFIDAVIT

I, Sh. JAPINDER SINGH S/O R/O

B-701, SHIPRA KRISHNA VISTA TOWER, PLOT NO. 14,
AHINSA KHAND, INDIRAPURAM, GHAZIABAD, UP-
201014. I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly
affirm and declare as under:-

1. That I am the defendant no.1 in the above noted case

and I am well conversant with the facts and
circumstances of the case, hence competent to swear
this affidavit.

2. That the contents of the accompanying reply/written

statement of Original Application have been drafted
by my counsel under my instructions and the same
are true and correct to my knowledge and the same
are not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity
which may be read as part and parcel of this
affidavit.
 Deponent
VERIFICATION:-

Verified at Delhi on this day of November,2023 that

the contents of the above affidavit are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. No
part of it is false and nothing material has been
concealed therefrom.

Deponent
 IN THE HON’BLE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –I, NEW
DELHI
T.A NO. 1092 OF 2023
OA NO. 163 OF 2022
IN THE MATTER OF:

UNION BANK OF INDIA APPLICANT

VERSUS

JAPINDER SINGH & ORS DEFENDENTS

AFFIDAVIT

I, Smt. VARINDER KAUR W/O JAPINDER SINGH R/o B-

701, SHIPRA KRISHNA VISTA TOWER, PLOT NO. 14,
AHINSA KHAND, INDIRAPURAM, GHAZIABAD, UP-
201014. above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm
and declare as under:-

1. That I am defendant no 2 in the above noted case

and I am well conversant with the facts and
circumstances of the case, hence competent to swear
this affidavit.

2. That the contents of the accompanying reply/written

statement of Original Application have been drafted
by my counsel under my instructions and the same
are true and correct to my knowledge and the same
are not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity
 which may be read as part and parcel of this
affidavit.

Deponent

VERIFICATION:-

Verified at Delhi on this day of November, 2023 that

the contents of the above affidavit are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. No
part of it is false and nothing material has been
concealed therefrom.

Deponent
 IN THE HON’BLE DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL –I, NEW
DELHI
T.A NO. 1092 OF 2023
OA NO. 163 OF 2022
IN THE MATTER OF:

UNION BANK OF INDIA APPLICANT

VERSUS

JAPINDER SINGH & ORS DEFENDENTS

LIST OF DOCUMENTS

1. Documents
2.

Dated:
Delhi.
DEFENDANTS
Through

MANOJ SHUKLA & ASSOCIATES

(ADVOCATES)
Ch.no. 593, GF, (W. Wing)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi-54
bnwlawfirm@gmail.com
MOB. 8810661366.