Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Sri. Boddam Praveen Yadav

DRT18 Dec 2024OA/356/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the originalling application filed by Bank of Baroda to recover a debt of approximately Rs. 33.15 lakhs along with interest and permitted sale of hypothecated vehicle.

What did the court decide?

The Defendant is liable to pay Rs.33,15,343.80 with interest @9.60% p.a. from 25.03.2024. The Applicant is entitled to proceed against the hypothecated vehicle.

Bank of Baroda versus Sri. Boddam Praveen Yadav — DRT (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER'2024

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

OA.No.356 of 2024

Between:

Bank of Baroda,

Vijayanagar colony branch, l0 13 I 677, Vfijayanagar Colony, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 057. Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applica nt

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Sri Boddam Praveen Yadav, S/o Srisailam Yadav, Aged about 44^years, occ: business, flat no.501, Praveen Residency, 8-3-825/ 5/ l, Srlnagar colony, Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad - 500 073.

¶10

Defe nda nt

¶11

Counsel for the Parties:

¶12

For the Applicant

¶13

For the Defendant

¶14

Sri G. Venkat Sri Maithreya Exparte

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Bank filed the present OA against^{Defendant for} recoverv of a otal sum of Rs.33,15,343.8ops^{(Rupees Thirty} 1 I 0E[ 202[ n Thousand Three Hundred Forty^threeand

¶17

(oA.3s6 of 2024)

¶18

paise Eaghtyonly) with interest @ 9.600lo p.afrom 25.03.2024 till the date of realization and in default for sale of hypothecated vehicle as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶19

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant availed car loan of Rs.55.00 lakhs vide sanction letter dated 21.11.2019 for purchase of a Jaguar F Pace 2.0 Diesel Fuji white passenger luxury car. The defendant hypothecated the above mentioned Jaguar car in favour of the Applicant bank. The defendant executed all necessary documents including loan agreement, promissory note and other ancillary documents. After availing the loan facility, the defendant failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NPA on 25.03.2024 and issued recall cum demand notice dated 21.06.2024. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendant did not clear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶20

Defendant called absent and set exparte on LL.71.2024.

¶21

Sri GafoorMdYahiya, Chief Manager of the Applicant^{Bank examined} himself as AW.1 and exiibited relevant documents, which^are

¶22

the Applicant Bank.

¶23

(OA.356 of 2024)

¶24

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant as prayed for?

¶25

Defendant remained exparte. To substantiate the case of the Applicant Bank, AW.1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined and he exhibited relevant documents as^Ex.A1 to A.15.^{In view of} the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank^{has established their claim} made in the OA against the Defendant and^{hence the ApplicantBank} is entitled to recover the claim^{made in the OA with future interest} and costs.

¶26

B. In the result, the^{present OA is allowed with costs, as under:} The Defendant is liable to^{pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of} Rs.33,15,343.80ps^(Rupees Thirty^{Three Lakhs Fifteen} Thousand Three Hundred Forty^{three and paise Eighty only)} with interest @ 9.600/o^{p'afrom 25.03.2024til1the date of} realization.

¶27

The Applicant bank is entitled^{to proceedagainst the hypothecated} vehicle as m ed in the schedule to^{OA towards realization of the}

¶28

to proceed against the Person

¶29

realization of the debt^due.

¶30

(oA.3s6 of 2024)

¶31

The Applicant Bank is entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶32

The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two^weeks from^{the date} of receipt of order.

¶33

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly'

¶34

Communicate a copy^{of the order to the parties concerned.}

¶35

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected,^{signedand pronounced by mein the open} court on this the 18th day^{of Dec,2024)}

¶36

sdl_ (G. GOPICHAND) PRES]DING OFFICER

¶37

rRqF999Y
Q.dr ----wt
-
{,t*f_y,:

Bank of Baroda v. Sri. Boddam Praveen Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Sri. Boddam Praveen Yadav

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

State Bank of India versus Sri Muggu Kumar

Indusind Bank Limited versus Radhika

M/S . Uco Bank versus M/S. Vanitha Jyothi Mahila Sangam

Indian Bank versus M/S. Mamatha Enterprises

Mrs D Umadevi versus Aptus Value Housing Finance India Ltd.

City Union Bank Limited versus Sri Sugyam Vittal