Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. M/S. Sri Sr Fly Ash Bricks

DRT18 Dec 2025OA/262/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DRT allowed Bank of Baroda's Original Application for recovery of dues from the proprietors of a brick firm. The court rejected defenses of limitation and blank signature execution citing unchallenged documentary evidence of debt acknowledgment and loan utilization.

What did the court decide?

Defendants declared jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 34,77,731.64 along with [email protected]% and costs; Recovery Certificate issued.

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Sri Sr Fly Ash Bricks — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAN4ESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB.^(HONS.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

Original Application No: 262 OF 2024

¶5

Bank of Baroda Kadapa Branch. Kadapa District, Rep by its Chief Manager ...Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s. Sri S R Fly Ash Bricks Rep by its Prop.: Mrs. Pusala Santhi R/o. Sy.No. 1043/2, 201, Industrial Estate, Urban Sub D Kadapa, YSR Dist Kadapa - 516 001

¶8

Mrs. Pusala Santhi w/o, Mr. Nagamalleswara Rao, Age 45 yrs. Female, R/o. 5/59, Nandipa lli Village, Kattaluru Post Vempalli Mandal, YSR Dist Kadapa - 516 004 ... Defenda nts

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant : M/s. Trivikram Chitturu Counsel for Defendants : Mr. Sudheer Bhan

¶10

:: ORDER::

¶11

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery of a sum of Rs.34,77,731.64 psl- from the defendants jointly and severally i.e., Cash Credit amounting to Rs. 6,50,744.58 ps with future interest @ 10.45olo p.a., Term loan amounting to Rs.77,62,412/- with further interest @ 11.500/o, WCTL loan amounting to Rs.4,23,575.06 psl- with future interest @ 9.25o/o and^TermLoan amounting to^Rs. 6,25,000/- with future^interest

¶12

ft-t"to

¶13

oA. No.26212024

¶14

with monthly^{restsfrom the date of applicationtill the date of realisation'} along^{with costs.}

¶15

2.TheavermentsoftheapplicantbankaspertheoA,inbrief,areihat theDefendantNo.2whoistheSoleproprietorofdefendantNo.lavailedot a Cash Credit^{facility of Rs' 4,93,000/-'term loan of Rs' 4'93'000/- on} 07.06.2019^{and wcTL of Rs.4'50 lakhs on o5 06 2020 on 04'11'2019the} applicant^{received subsidy of Rs 6,25'O0O/- and as perGovernment} guidelines, if the^{unit fails in its businesswithin three years subsidyamount} has to be^{refunded to the Governmentand hence the amount has been} keptinFDRandaninterest-freeloanofRs.6,25,ooo/-hasbeensanctioned against that^{FDR and thereafter creditedthe FDR into termloanaccount'} Due to^{non-payment, applicant Bank declared the loan account as NPA on} 04,lZ.2OZl^{as per RBI guidelines The defendants acknowledged the} liability and^{executed the Letter of Acknowtedgementof Debtson} 25.05.2022-^{As the defendantsfailed to clearthe dues' the presentOA is} filed for^recovery.

¶16

Defendant^{No. 1 and 2 filed theirwritten statementThey denied the} averments^{made in the OA as well as the claim arising therefromlt is} contended^{that the claimis less thanRs 20 lakhs however claim has been} increased^{by addingexorbitant interest and hence OA is not maintainable'} The OA^{is out of limitation since defendantsdid not executeletter on} 25.05j2022'Theofficialsoftheapplicantbankhadobtainedtheir signatures^{on blank printedforms Theyare not awareof receipt of subsidy} amount of^{Rs.6,25,000/- and applicant bank is not entitled to adjustthe} sametoloanaccountwithoUtknowledgeofdefendants.oAisliabletobe dlsmissed.

¶17

dlsmissed. 4. In^{order to prove its case' the ApplicantBank examinedY T'} Raghavendra^{Reddy, SeniorManager cum authorisedsignatory as AW-1} and^{marked 22 documentsthrough him as Ex A'1 lo Ex' A'227fiitty''.9} /J/zr4t--

¶18

OA. No.26212024

¶19

¶20

In order to substantiate the defence, the 2"d defendant M rs. Pusala Santhi who is the^proprietor of D-1, examined herself as DW-1 and marked no documents.

¶21

Heard the Ld. counsel appearing for the applicant bank and learned counsel for the defendants. Perused the material^placed on record.

¶22

According to the learned counsel for the applicant bank, defendants having availed the cash credit facility, term^loans and^{WCTL, by executing} loan documents, the defendants neglected in repayment in spite^of repeated requests and demands and hence the loan account^{was declared} NPA as per RBI guidelines. The OA is filed within limitation. Exhibits^{A.1 to} A.22 marked through AW-1 amply^prove the^claim of the^{applicant hence} oA may be allowed.

¶23

Learned counsel for the defendants reiterated the^version as^{in the} written statement that the application is barred by the limitation as^no acknowledgement of debt was executed^{and the documentsbased on which} claim is made are outdated for claim, applicant bank charged^excess interest to inflate the OA claim amount to more than^{Rs.20lakhs and} obtained signatures on blank^printed formats^With this^{contention,learned} counsel sought for dismissal of the OA.

¶24

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶25

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the^{OA claim} against the Defendants?

¶26

There is no dispute of availing credit facilities by the^{2nd defendant} being proprietor of 1't defendant. Exs.A.1 to A.22 are^{the documents} marked by the applicant through Aw-1 as^{proof of sanctlon of credit} facilities, execution loan documents, D.P.^Note,- Jontinulng^security, ,.ftrr^u L_/^_\g\r-

¶27

oA. No.^26212024

¶28

hypothecation^{agreementand letters of acknowledgement of debt'} Exs.A.12,^{A.13 and A.14 are the letters of acknowledgement of debt dated} ?5,o5,2o22and06.12.2022whichbearthesignatureof2"ddefendant. Hence the^{contentions of non-executionof acknowledgementof debtand} bar of^{limitation, are baseless and do not deserve acceptance' Accordingto} applicant^{bank, the subsidyamount of Rs 6 25 lakhs receivedas per PMEGP} guidelines from^{the Government,was firstkeptin FDR' sanctloned interest-} free loan^{againstFDR and later adjustedto the termloanaccountHaving} availed^{loan against FDR, she cannotbe permittedto contend that such} amount^{was adjustedwithouther knowledgeThe contentions on obtaining} signatures^{on blankdocuments, chargeof excess interestetc ' are not} substantiated^{either by placing someevidentiarydocumentson behalfof} defendants^{or by cross-examinationof AW-1to disputethe authenticity of} the Exs.A.1^{lo A.22. Undersuch circumstances'the evidence of AW-1} coupled with^{recitals in Exs'A 1 to A'22 remainsunchallengedand un-} rebutted and^{accordingly OA deserves to be allowed holdingthat} defendants are^{jointlyand severally liable to pay the balanceOA claimwith} future interest^{and costs.}

¶29

In the^{result,the present OriginalApplication No'26212o24 is allowed} as under:^-

¶30

the Defendants^{1 and 2 are jointly and severally} i) liable to^{pay to the Appllcant Bank} -a^{sum of Rs'} R.s.34,7 r,n:t.64^{ps i'e} ,^(i)Rs'6 '60'744'58 ps under cash^{creditaccount'(li)Rs'L7} '62'4721under term^{loan account' (iii)Rs 4'23'575'06ps} under^{WCTLand (iv)Rs6'25'000/-under term loan} against^{Deposit account; togetherwith interest @} 10.7ovo^{per annumsimple on (j)} .^{and (ii) loan} accounts; @7^{8o/o p a simpleon (iii) Ioan account} from the date^{oi applicationtill the date of} realization;^{and no} i4'teiest^{on loan account at (iv)} above. t9 lYt ' (-/

¶31

OA. No. 26212024

¶32

¶33

ii) the claim of the applicant is secured by way of hypothecate of movable assets as described on OA schedule and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same to realize its debt;

¶34

iii) the applicant bank is also entitled to^proceed against the person and^properties of the defendants for realization of its debt;

¶35

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶36

The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶37

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶38

Cbmmunicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload in the omcial website.

¶39

(Typed to my dictation by the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 186 day of December, 2025),

¶40

S"'r

¶41

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Bank of Baroda v. M/S. Sri Sr Fly Ash Bricks

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. M/S. Sri Sr Fly Ash Bricks

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

Bank of Maharashtra versus Mr. Bandar Chand Basha

Kontham Padmavathi versus Vardhaman Mahila Co. Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

Bank of India versus Sri. Avinash Pasumarthi

Ms Om Sri Venkata Sai Enterprises and Others versus Union Bank of India

Icici Bank Limited versus Dara Pragna Prathyusha

M/s. Icici Bank Limited. versus Sri. Sri. Mohana Reddy Nalamachireddy