Lawfully yours: By Retired Justice K Chandru

I had availed a home loan of Rs 26.95 lakh on a floating interest of 10.75% in May 2011 from a bank with a 15-year term period against a 2BHK flat constructed by a builder after entering into a tripartite agreement involving banker, builder and borrower. However, the project got jinxed and got into litigation due to grave building violations owing to which the Supreme Court on Aug 31 ordered to demolish it against which a refund of the full amount with 12% interest was to be made to the flat purchasers within two months. I had diligently paid all EMIs for over five years amounting to Rs 21.20 lakh. However, owing to the slowdown a few EMIs could not be paid and thereafter the things changed for the worse. After my account became NPA in 2016, a suit was filed in the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) against me for a claim of Rs 29.30 lakh (as of Oct 30 it’s Rs 37.47 lakh) for closing the loan to give a ‘foreclosure letter’ required to be submitted to the builder for getting the refund. Since the tripartite agreement has failed to meet its objective, we’ve been requesting the bank to deduct interest/penal interest and take the total outstanding amount and close the loan based on the 10 years’ tenure i.e. till the date of SC order (Aug 31) or till refund within two months (i.e. for 10 years and 6 months). But the bank is not agreeing to it. Please advice.— V Srinivasan, Janakpuri, New Delhi-5

Your query is vague in certain aspects and bereft of details. However, one thing is clear. Since relief was granted by an order of the Supreme Court and technically you are a defaulter, you may not be eligible to avail the benefit like others who have lost their apartment due to demolition of the building. Your only remedy is to seek clarification from the Supreme Court itself by filing an appropriate application before it.

In normal banking transactions and the laws governing them, you will not be getting any relief by filing any other case before the normal courts.

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed here are of Justice K Chandru, who is providing guidance and direction based on his rich experience and knowledge of the law. This is not a substitute for legal recourse which must be taken as a follow-up if so recommended in these columns