Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Mr. Varikuppala Shekar

DRT25 Aug 2025OA/263/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Bank-of-"Backs Original Application for recovery. The court held the defendant liable to pay the claimed sum with interest and costs, based ex-parte proceedings and evidence.

What did the court decide?

Defendant liable to pay Rs.48,06,842/- with future interest and costs; OA secured by hypothecation of vehicle; bank entitled to proceed against defendant's assets.

Bank of Baroda versus Mr. Varikuppala Shekar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com., L.LB. (Hons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

ORIGINALAPPLICATION No: 263 OF 2025

¶4

Bank of Baroda., (Erstwhile Vijaya Bank) Film Nagar Branch, Jubilee Hills Hyderabad. Rep. by its Chief Manager.

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr. Varikuppala Shekar, S/o.Sri.Varikuppala Naraiah, Aged 33 Years, Plot No,540 Kasturi Colony, ZP Road, Kharmanghat Near TKR Engg College, Ranga Reddy Telangana - 500079. ...Defendant

¶8

: M/s.Trivikram Chitturu Counsel for the Applicant

Defendant

: Ex-parte

:: ORDER::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.48,06,842/- trom the defendant with future interest @15.75olo^p.a. with^monthlyrests from the date of application till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of hypothecated vehicle.

¶13

Summon served on sole defendant and was set ex-parte on 24.06.2025 as called absent and no representation.

¶14

The Applicant Bank examined M.Baloji, Officer, as AW-1 and marked 07 documents through him as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.07.

¶15

Yu*r

¶16

oA.NO.263l2025

¶17

Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank. perused the material placed on record.

¶18

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶19

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitted for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant and OA hypothecated vehicle?

¶20

As stated supra, the Defendant remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs.A.1 to A.07 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendant. Hence, I hold that the Defendant is liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶21

In the result, the present Original Application No.26312025 is allowed as under: -

¶22

i) The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.48,06,842l- with future interest @11.600lo p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶23

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation of vehicle described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶24

iii) the applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants for realization of its dues,TfugLg

¶25

oA.No.26g/2025

¶26

iv) the applicant bank is entitied for the costs.

¶27

a The Applicant Bank is r Memo within 2 weeks rrom the date or.".",;l:ffi:.til:",-"

¶28

Issue Recovery CertiFicate accordingly,

¶29

.i?ffii: ffi ::.i"lljl"^jj,tl:- :jgu:^{to rh e pa rties} co n ce rn ed this the 2sth;r;;;;;;;:t'r1,''t,", and pronounced by me in the op"n .ou.t o, fu** (RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Bank of Baroda v. Mr. Varikuppala Shekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Mr. Varikuppala Shekar

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

Sri vijaykumar versus Bank of Maharashtra

Ski Metal Craft versus Bajaj Finance Ltd.

State Bank of India versus M/S. K.S. Care Hospital

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Swathi Dental Manufacturer

Axis Bank Ltd. versus Mohammadmahdi Kelidari

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Padmavathi Industry