Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. M/S. Rahul Metals

DRT15 Jul 2025OA/198/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Bank of Baroda for recovery of ₹60,15,576 plus interest against a proprietorship concern and the legal heirs of a deceased guarantor. The court upheld the bank's claim based on submitted documents and ordered joint and several liability with rights over mortgaged properties.

What did the court decide?

Allowed OA; Defendants liable to pay ₹60,15,576 with interest; Bank may proceed against mortgaged properties and other defendants'/personal properties.

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Rahul Metals — Company and Corporate | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 15rH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.198 OF 2025

¶5

Between:

¶6

Bank of Baroda, Marredpally branch, Prakash Arcade, West Marredpally Main road, Secunderabad - 5OO 026. Represented by its^principal officer and Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. Rahul Metals,

¶10

Represented by its^proprietor Mr. Arvind Kumar, s/o Parshuram^prasad Sinha, office at H.No.6-3-330,

¶11

Key Co-operative Society,

¶12

New Bhoiguda, Secunderabad - 3.

¶13

Also at

¶14

H.No.6-72/ 5, Brindavan Ex-service Men colony, Near BSNL tower lane, Balajinagar,^yapral, Secunderabad- 87. Mrs. SangeethaKumari,

¶15

w/o Arvind kumar died as per LRs 2 to 4

¶16

Mr. Arvind Kumar, s/o P.P. Sinha, Husband of late

¶17

' ..^{SangeetaKumari,} H.No.G72l5, Brindavan Ex-service / Men colony, Near BSNL tower lane, t) ,;, Balajinagar, Yapral, Secunderabad- 87. r' 'r ;!$, t,

¶18

3q t;, t4r. trtitin Kum{r, s/o Mr. Arvind Kumar and late i-..*. ,t Sangee,liiiltr^sangee8lr{hi mari, H.No.6 -721-72/ 5 , qs;r-nfrbt

¶19

(OA. No.198/202s)

¶20

Brindavan Ex-service Men colony, Near BSNL tower lane, Balajinagar,^yapral, Secunderabad- 87.

¶21

Mr. Rahul Kumar, s/o Mr. Arvind Kumar and late SangeetaKumari, H.No.6-7 2/ 5, Brindavan Ex_service Men colony, Near BSNL tower lane, Balajinagar,^yapral, Secunderabad_ 87. Defendants

¶22

Counsel for the parties: For the Applicant : Sri N.V. Subba Raju For the Defendants : Exparte

¶23

ORDER

¶24

1' The Appricant Bank fired the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.6O,15,576l_ (Rupees Sixty Lakhs Fifteen Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Six only) with further interest @ ll.75o/o p.a with monthly rests from 01.05.2025 tirr the date of rearization and in defaurt for sare of mortgaged properties as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶25

2' As per the averments in the apprication, the Appricant Bank states that defendant no.1 is a proprietorship concern represented by its proprietor/ defendant no.2. In 2023, defendant no.1 arong with rate

¶26

.,..- ..ril;:.::i^.

¶27

-..r,.,,-^{Pqns""taKumari availedcash creditlimit of Rs.5S.00lakhs} and undffikingf:'llletter of undertaking and power of attorney and xdf?ffi:j ,q t{ -u "ri -F: $.hrlle$'IY)

¶28

(oA. No.19sl202s)

¶29

declaration of mortgage by deposit of tiue deeds dated 30.01.2023. It is reported that guarantor SangeetaKumari died in 2024, as such husbands and sons were added as parties/ legal heirs / defendants no. 2 to 4. Defendant no.1 created mortgage of schedule properties and deposited the tiile deeds in favour of Applicant bank. After avairing the roan facirities, the defendants faired to compry the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NpA and demand notice was issued on lg.Og,2024. Inspite of several requests and demands, the defendants did not crear the outstanding. Hence this OA.

¶30

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 07.07.2025.

¶31

Sir A. ManojKumar, Senior Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are

¶32

marked as Ex.A.1 to A.19.

¶33

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶34

a rise for consideration is whether the Applicant Bank is

¶35

claim made in the OA against the Defendants as

¶36

edexparte. To substantiate the case of the

¶37

, 4rDf,idlh E?ihr, .1, official of the Applicant Bank was examined

¶38

relevant documents as Ex.A1 to A.19. In view of

¶39

(oA.No.198/202s)

¶40

the above, I hord that the Appricant Bank has estabrished their craim made in the OA against the Defendants and hence the Applicant Bank is entitled to recover the craim made in the oA with future interest and costs.

¶41

In the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under: The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.6O,15,516/_ (Rupees Sixty Lakhs Fifteen Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Six only) with further interest @ tl.75o/o p.a from 01.05.2025 till the date of realization.

¶42

The Applicant bank is entifled to proceed against the mortgaged properties as mentioned in the schedure to oA towards rearization of the debt due;

¶43

10' The Appricant Bank is arso entitred to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No. 2 to 4 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due. However, the applicant bank is entiued onry to the extent of estate devolved upon the legal heirs/ defendants No.2 to 4 from the deceased late Kumari.

¶44

'r.-+.I1. Jhe Ap Bank is entitled to the costs of the OA. i1..': ) * isluLlffi *r rtE{. {} .'i

WoS

(oA.No.198/202s)

12' The Appricant shail fire a cost memo within two weeks from the date 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., transcribe this the 15th day of July, ,orrro o, her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on

¶52

ff. <br>-,-
? rirn iiia
:
:1 5 ll[.:ffi r
WN,**^*t#
S;m'B

¶53

sd/-
(G. GOPTCHAND)
PRESlDING OFFICER

¶54

wry^
lssr. nfsr'lhi'

Bank of Baroda v. M/S. Rahul Metals

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. M/S. Rahul Metals

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

Similar cases

Idbi Bank versus M/S. Topaz Aerospace Technologies

Pushpa Trading versus State Bank of India

Idbi Bank versus Smt D Hymavathi Reddy

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Sivva Revanth Kumar

Syed Mahmood Mohiuddin versus Union Bank of India

Guntala Krishna Kumar Goud versus Canara Bank