Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. M/S. Mln Industries Private Limited

DRT5 Aug 2025OA/260/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the original application filed by Bank of Baroda for recovery of a loan amount of 3.24 crores from the defendants, finding their liability established by unchallenged evidence.

What did the court decide?

Defendants to pay Rs. 3,24,01,301.09 with future interest @ 11.55% p.a. less Rs. 45,25,000 recovered via property sale; proceed against mortgaged properties and personal properties for realization; re

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Mln Industries Private… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE sTH DAY OF AUGUST,2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.26O ot 2023

¶5

Between:

¶6

Bank of Baroda, ROSAR Branch, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad Represented by its Chief Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

M/s. MLN Industries Private Limited, Represented by its Directors, 8-3-456/17, 1't floor, Dwarakapuri colony, Punjagutta, Hyderabad - 500 085.

¶10

Mr. DagillaBabuPrashanth Rao, s/o D. Shankar Rao, aged 43 years, major, male, plot no.65, Womens Co-operative Society, Sai Krishna Nagar Main Road, Yousufguda, Khairatabad, Hyderabad - 500 045.

¶11

Mr.MadanuBalaswamy, s/o Madanulnnaiah, aged 53 years, major, male, 2-83, Kammagudem, Alairmandal, Bahadurpet, Alair, Nalgonda, TS - 508 101.

¶12

Mr. Madanu Joseph, s/o Madanulnnaiah, aged 47 years, major, male, 2-83/L, Kammagudem, . Alairmandal, Bahadurpet, Alairi ,* .-'rⁱ Defenda nts

¶13

Nalgonda, TS - 508 101. .,.,,"' *^'illy it:.!

i^osru02m :

(OA.No.312 of 2024)

Counsel for the Parties:

¶18

For the Applicant Sri Chitturu Srinivas For the Defendants No.2 to 4 Sri E. Vishwa E. Vishwa Vishwa Prasad Defendant no.1 Expa rterte

¶19

Sri E. Vishwa E. Vishwa Vishwa Prasad

¶20

Expa rterte

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.3,24,O1,3O1.O9ps (Rupees Three Crores Twenty Four Lakhs One Thousand Three hundred one and paise nine only) with future interest @ 11.55o/o p.awith monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization and in default for mortgaged properties as mentioned in the schedule to oA.

¶23

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.2 to 3 are directors of defendant no.1 availed cash credit facility of Rs.300 lakhs on 04.Lt.2020 executed DP note, letter of continuing security, composite hypothecation agreement and PoA in respect of book debts. The cash credit facilities availed by defendants are secured by equitable mortgage of application schedule property belonging to defendants no.3 & 4 evidenced by the memorandum of deposit of title deeds on 30.01.202 ent no.2875l202t and 4Ol3/2O21 in the

¶24

(OA.No.312 of 2024)

¶25

It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendants have availed the said loan facilities and failed to keep up the repayment schedule, as such the account was classified as NpA on 26.04.2022 and issued demand notice dated L3.06.2023. Inspite of demands made by Appricant the defendants have not regularized the account, and the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is of Rs.3,24,O1,3O1.09ps (Rupees Three Crores Twenty Four Lakhs One Thousand Three hundred one and paise nine only) with future interest @ 11.55o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of application till the date of realization. Hence the OA.

¶26

The Defendants No.2 to 4 filed written statement and denied the averments made in oA. The defendants denied the execution of documents and mortgage of schedule properties. It is submitted that the defendants filed SA.56/2023 before this Tribunal and the Applicant bank later withdrawn the demand notice and possession notice, the sA.56/2023 was closed on 25.04.2023.It is submitted by the defendants that they were regurar in repaying the roan amount and denied the classification of account as NpA without following the OU1 gri!9],ilgl axd contended that the OA is neither maintainabte ,.".

¶27

nor,teffiq$'j ed for dismissal of OA. i,i'd-. i,^lY

¶28

(OA.No.312 of 2024)

¶29

The Applicant Bank in support of its claim, filed evidence affidavit duly sworn in by Sri K. Ajay Kumar, Manager as AW.1 and through him marked 17 documents as Ex.A.1 to A.17. The Applicant bank filed a memo stating that the mortgaged property was sold and recovered a sum of Rs.45,25,000/-. As against this, the defendants did not choose to adduce any evidence on their behalf in support of their contentions and also did not choose to cross examine the AW.1 to controvert her Chief Evidence. Inspite of repeated adjournments, the defendants failed to file evidence Affidavit, hence the right of filing Defendant Evidence Affidavit was closed on 10.07.2025.

¶30

I have perused the documents placed on record.

¶31

Now, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶32

i) Whether the Applicant Bank has proved its claim as made in OA against the defendants ?

¶33

ii) To what relief ?

¶34

Point No.i):

¶35

As per the documents filed by the Applicant Bank and also as^per the admissioD€ffi€kbq( the defendants in the Written statement, it is t".

¶36

veryldbartfi@ndffiants have availed loan from the^Applicant ,*, k. -€$ 'l b utrl fail 6d d to rep dyf,y.t$e amount. All the amounts paid by the ..{r5"1"U8,ffi, ".Jjil."a in the statement of account rited by

¶37

(OA.No.312 of 2024)

¶38

Applicant Bank. The defendants have not placed any material documents to show their bonafides for establishing that the schedule property was not mortgaged in favour of Applicant bank.

¶39

AW.1 is not cross examined by the counsel for defendants. The defendants have not come forward to give evidence to substantiate that their liability is less than the amount mentioned in the OA and no supporting documents filed for establishing the creation of mortgage of schedule property. Under such circumstances, the evidence of AW.1 coupled with recitals Ex,A.1 to A.17 stood unchallenged and unrebutted. The Applicant bank clearly established that the defendants are liable to pay the OA amount to the Applicant bank.

¶40

Point No.ii)

¶41

In the result, the present Original application is allowed with costs as u nder:

¶42

The Defendants are joinUy and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.3,24,Ol,3O1.O9ps (Rupees Three Crores Twenty Four Lakhs One Thousand Three hundred one and paise nine only) with future interest @ 11.55o/o p.a from date of application till date of realizationLEsS a sum ofRs.45,25,OOO/through sale of property under SARFAESI Act, 2Ob2; {J l'! (, .i :r:: i ,i:a.^--,.{ - 5 R

¶43

(OA.No.312 of 2024)

¶44

B. The Applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged schedule property as mentioned in the schedure to oA towards realization of the debt due.

¶45

The Applicant Bank is arso entitred to proceed against the person and properties of defendant No.2 to 4 and properties of defendant no.1 firm towards realization of the debt due.

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶49

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶50

(Dictated to the P A., transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 5th day of Aug, 2025)

¶51

sdl-

¶52

(G. GOPTCHAND) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶53

0 5 rl]0 2tui :
,-ta
,,i,l

¶54

TRUE COPY
*rm
tty
^bf ;, HYAERABAOw

Bank of Baroda v. M/S. Mln Industries Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. M/S. Mln Industries Private Limited

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

State Bank of India versus Miss Kurrapati Swarna Latha

Mrs Harriet Francis Dass versus Gic Housing Finance Limited

C Rama Devi versus Apsfc

Canara Bank versus M/S. Chaitanya Powerloom Industry

Uco Bank versus Smt. Pulimamidi Kavitha

State Bank of India versus Mr. Brahmosthava Industries