A tripartite construction credit agreement generally lists the rights and remedies of the three parties from the perspective of the borrower, the lender and the developer. It describes the phases or phases of construction, the final sale price, the date of holding as well as the interest rate and the payment plan of the loan. It also defines the legal procedure known as the transfer of receivables and determines who, how and when different securities are transferred in the property between the parties. 9. The petitioner`s experienced lawyer also attempted to identify a complaint about the manner in which the auction was conducted and the property sold to the auctioneer. It has also become difficult that its representation has not been abolished under Article 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Law. Suffice it to say that not only are they unfounded, but the petitioner did not even choose to present such pleas in subsequent forums and that they were not discussed in the order under appeal. We verify the legality and validity of orders issued by the DRT and DRAT in accordance with Article 226 of the Indian Constitution and not as an appell authority. This is not a second call. An order must be perverse or cause serious injustice for this court to exercise its exceptional jurisdiction.
The facts show that it was the petitioner who led the respondents` bank on the way to the garden by obtaining the initial deed of subsidy from the DDA and not having it deposited with the defendant bank, unlike the TPA executed between the parties. He first attempted to exploit this fact by claiming that no mortgage had been created, since the original document was still in his possession. This plea was rejected by the two bodies below, not only because of the aspect of creating a mortgage, but also because the defendant bank had a “safeguard interest” for the property to invoke the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. 6. In Sandeep Kumar`s application for defence of leave, it was argued that the amount of the loan within the meaning of the tripartite agreement concluded by HDFC Ltd. was paid directly to M/s Golf Course for payment of the apartment purchased by Sandeep Kumar. Subsequently, Sandeep Kumar learned that there was a serious dispute between M/s Golf Course and Noida Authority and that there was a serious fraud in the company. Sandeep Kumar has abandoned his crab garden, accepted by M/s Golf Course by his letter of March 20, 2012. . .