Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. M/S. Bhagat Fruit Company

DRT3 Dec 2025OA/221/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An Applicant Bank filed an Original Application for recovery of debt along with interest against three Defendants including a proprietorship firm and a guarantor. The Defendants were absent. The Presiding Officer, after hearing the Applicant and examining documents, allowed the OA and directed the issuance of a Recovery Certificate.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of Rs. 60,67,734/- with future interest at 9.35% p.a.; issuance of Recovery Certificate; entitlement to proceed against hypothecated/mortgaged properties.

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Bhagat Fruit Company — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - I AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 3Td DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

OA. No. 221 OF 2025

¶4

Between :

¶5

Bank of Baroda, Gaddiannram Branch, Hyderabad, T.S. Representated by its Chief Manager

¶6

Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

M/s. Bhagat Fruit Company, Rep. by its Prop. Sri K. Bhagat Reddy, Aged Major, Sex male, Occ : Business, Peddagudem, Peddavoora Mandal, Sirasanagandla, Nalgonda District, Telangana State - 508 266,

¶9

Sri. K. Bhagat Reddy,

¶10

S/o. Sri K. Nagi Reddy, Age 32 Years, Sex Male, Occ : Business, 3'd Floor, Plot No. 83, Road No.^2, Laxmi Nagar Colony, Kothapet, Hyderabad, - 500 035, Telangana State.

¶11

Also At :

¶12

Srl. K. Bhagat Reddy,

¶13

S/o. Sri K. Nagi Reddy Peddagudem, Peddavoora M

¶14

(OA. No. 22rl212sl

¶15

Sirasanagandla, NalgondaDistrict,
TelanganaState-508 266,
3.Mr. KamsaniPawanKalyan,
S/o KamsaniLaxmaReddy,
AgeMajor,SexMale,Occ:Business
R/o. H.No.5-711, DevarkondaRoad,
Anumula,Haliya,
Nalgonda District-S08377,
TelenganaState.		Defendants
Counsel fortheparties:
For TheApplicant	M. Srinivas
Forthe Defendant	Exparte
Reservedon	24.11.2025
Pronouncedon	03.12.2025
Uploadinwebsiteon	03.12.2025

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.60,67,734l- (Rupees Sixty Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty Four Only) with future interest @ 9.35% p.a with monthly rests including Penal interest-@ 2% p.a froth the date of this apptication tiil the and in default for sale of Hypothecated in the Schedules A and B to OA.

¶18

(oA. No. 22U202s)

¶19

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that Defendant No.1 is a Proprietorship Firm Represented By its proprietor Defendant No. 2 and Defendant No. 3 stood as a Guarantor and mortgagor. The applicant Bank contended that Defendant No. 1 represented by its proprietor Defendant No.2 availed Working Capital Facility of Rs.28.00 Lakhs with interest @^9.35%p.awith monthly rests and executed Composite Hypothecation Agreement dated 21.06.2021 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendant No. 1 represented by its Proprietor Defendant No.2 enhanced Working Capital Facility of Rs.54.00 Lakhs with interest @ 9.35%p.a with monthly rests and executed Composite Hypothecation Agreement dated 25.1 0.2021 in favor of the Applicant Bank. The Defendant no.3 created equitable mortgage morefully mentioned in Schedule B to OA and executed Mortgage by Deposit of Tifle Deeds No. 3343/2021 dated 22.10.2021 and deposited original gift deed in favor of the Applicant Bank. After availing the loan facility, the defendants failed to comply the terms of sanction, hence the applicant bank classified the account as NPA and issued Demand notice on 02.09.2024 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAEST Act, 2OO2.The applicant Bank also initiated SARFAESI Act, 2OO2 and issued notices to the Defendants. lnspite of several requests and dema did not clear the outstanding. Hence this

¶20

(oA. No.22u2o2sl

¶21

Defendants called absent and set exparte on 09.09.2025.

¶22

Sri. Garimella. V. Subbarao, Chief Manager of the Applicant Bank examined himself as AW.1 and exhibited relevant documents, which are marked as Ex.A.1 to A.26.

¶23

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank.

¶24

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

¶25

Defendants 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.A.1 to 4.26. ln view of the above, I hold that the Applicant Bank has established 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.

¶26

ln the result, the present OA is allowed with costs, as under^:

¶27

a total sum of Rs.60,67,734/-^(Rupees Thousand Seven Hundred Thifi

¶28

(oA. No. 22V202s)

¶29

Four Only) with future interest @ 9.35% p.a from the date of this application till the date of realization.

¶30

The Applicant Bank is entitled to proceed against the Hypothecated Movables and Mortgaged Property mentioned in the Schedules A and B to the OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶31

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants No. 2 and 3 and properties of defendant No.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

lssue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶35

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

¶36

(Dictated to the P.A., iranscdbed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3d day of Dec, 2025)

¶37

sd/-
(G. GOPTCHAND)
PRESIDING OFFICER
:*fli
",;#;ir^,

Bank of Baroda v. M/S. Bhagat Fruit Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. M/S. Bhagat Fruit Company

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

Jithender Nagabelly versus Sriram finance limited

Canara Bank versus M/S. Guru Krupa Powerloom Industry

State Bank of India versus Sri. Gabbeta Vijay Kumar

Canara Bank versus M/S. Sri Upvc Windows and Grills

State Bank of India versus M/S. Fenoplast Limited

M/s Rr Gundlapalli versus Union Bank of India