Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Allianza Distributors

DRT7 Apr 2025OA/11/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the OA filed by Bank of Baroda for recovery of a debt of approx Rs.2.56 crore from Allianza Distributors and its partners who furnished guarantees and hypothecated/mortgaged their assets, holding the bank established its claim.

What did the court decide?

Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.2,56,90,595.44 with interest; Bank entitled to realize amount from hypothecated/mortgaged properties and personal assets.

Bank of Baroda versus Allianza Distributors — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THrS THE 7rH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GoPIcHAND, PRESTDING oFFICER

¶4

OA.No.11 ot 2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

Bank of Baroda, Abids branch, RVBR Reddy Hostel campus, 4-l-36, Hanuman Tekkadi, Abids Circle, Hyderabad - 500 OO1. Rep by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Allianza Distributors,

¶10

Represented by its partner,

¶11

Mohammed Haji, S/o Mohammed Iqbal, plot no.10, Sy.No.29,

¶12

Meer sagar, Salarjung, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad - 500 064.

¶13

Sri Mohammed Haji, S/o Mohammed Iqbal, Ag.ed about 36 years, occ: business, H.No.4-25-316/7, SOG Bowti, Sulemannagar, Rajend ra naga r, Rangareddy district -500 052.

¶14

Sri Mohammed Safwan, s/o Mohammed Ismail,

¶15

aged about 30 years, occ:business, H.No.4-25-316/7, SOG Bowti, Sulemannagar, Rajendranagar, Rangareddy district -500 05).

¶16

Sri Mohammed Kazim, s/o Mohammed Ismail, aged about 2B years, occ: business,

¶17

(oA.No.11l2024)

¶18

H.No.4-25-316/7, SOG Bowti, Sulemannagar, Rajendra nagar, Rangareddy district _S0O 05).

¶19

Sri Mohammed Saddam, s/o Mohammed Iqbal, aged about 31 years, occ: buiiness, H. No.4-25-3l6/7, SOG Bowti, Sulemannagar, Rajendranagar, Rangareddy district _50O 052.

¶20

Defenda nts

¶21

Counsel for the parties:

¶22

For the Applicant

¶23

For the Defendants

¶24

Sri G. Venkat SriMaithreya Expa rte

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The Applicant Bank filed the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.2,55,90,595.44ps (Rupees Two Crores Fifty Six Lakhs Ninety Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Five and paise Forty four only) with interest @ 14.05% p.a from 0r'07.2023 ti, the date of rearization and in defaurt for sare of hypothecated machinery and mortgaged property as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶27

As per the averments the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 concern represented by defendants no.2 to 4 00 la khs vide sanction letter dated 29.12.20 ood as g ua ra ntors and hypothecated the the schedule to OA.

¶28

(OA.No.11l2024)

¶29

The oD facility was enhanced from Rs.50.00 lakhs to Rs.15o.oo lakhs on 05.12.2019 and executed demand promissory note, letter of continuity security, supplemental composite instrument of hypothecation of goods and etc. Defendants No. 2to 5 created extension of mortgage security over the immovable property more fully described in the schedure to oA. After avairing the roan facilities, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sancuon, hence the applicant bank was constrained to classify the account as NPA and issued demand notice dated 31.03.2023. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not crear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶30

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 24,02.2025.

¶31

Sri K. Ashok Kumar, Chief Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant docu ments, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.49.

¶32

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶33

The point that arise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is

¶34

entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants as

¶35

prayed for?

¶36

Defendants re antiate the case of the

¶37

Appticant aunt,^lnil/. r, brti.iHBo?tb" n$ cant Bank was examined

¶38

(oA.No.11l202a)

¶39

and he exhibited rerevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.4g. In view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has estabrished their claim made in the OA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the claim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶40

B. In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under:

¶41

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.2,56,9o,595.44ps (Rupees Two Crores Fifty Six Lakhs Ninety Thousand Five Hundred Ninety Five and paise Forty four only) with interest @ 14.05% p.a from 07,07.2023 till the date of realization.

¶42

9' The Applicant bank is entifled to proceed against the hypothecated movabres/ machinery and mortgaged property as mentioned in the schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due;

¶43

The Applicant Bank is also entiUed to proceed against the person

¶44

and properties of defendant No.2 to 5 and properties of defendant no.1 due.

¶45

The Applicant of the OA.
Il-, o I RpR mzs x
t '-1t r.it
1.,

¶46

(oA.No.11l202a)

¶47

The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date

¶48

of receipt of order.

¶49

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶50

communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶51

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7th day of April, 2025)

¶52

sd/ - (G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶53

*
APB 7fl7( ,F";
""}

¶54

TRUE COPY ,r*:',rffio

¶55

Bank of Baroda v. Allianza Distributors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Allianza Distributors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S. Vishnu Sai Enterprises

mr sanjay kumar agarwal versus Punjab National Bank

State Bank of India versus Sri Kishan Sudeer Singh

Union Bank of India versus M/S. S S Equipments

Ram Mohan Vadnala versus Omkara Asset Recontruction Pvt. Ltd.

Bank of Baroda versus Varalaxmi Seed Processing Plant