Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Mrs. Malothu Mamatha

DRT14 Aug 2025OA/478/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's application for recovery of Rs.23.15 lakhs along with interest. The bank established the loan and default via documentary evidence. The defendants denied the claim but failed to adduce evidence or cross-examine the bank's witness, rendering the bank's evidence unchallenged.

What did the court decide?

Issuance of a recovery certificate for a sum of Rs.23,15,314.25 with future interest at 13.60% p.a.

Bank of Baroda versus Mrs. Malothu Mamatha — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 14rH DAy OF AUGUST,2025

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.478 ot 2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

Bank of Baroda, Khammam trunk road branch, No.4-2-50l1, Gandhiganj, Khammam, Telangana - 507 OO3. Represented by its Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Mrs. Malothu Mamatha, w/o Malothu Kishan, R/o 1-10, Theerdhala, Gandhichowk, Khammam, Telangana - 507 OO3.

¶10

Mr. Maloth Kishan, s/o Pakeera, aged about 36 years, occ: business, R/o 1-10, Theerdhala, Gandhichowk, Khammam, Telangana - 507 003.

¶11

Defendants

¶12

Counsel for the Parties:

¶13

For the

¶14

For the

¶15

Sri G. Venkat Sri Maithreya

¶16

Sri M. Venkat Diwakar

¶17

S^{llrlur'zai *} Wrx,sP

¶18

(OA.No.478 of 2024)

¶19

ORDER

¶20

1' The Applicant Bank filed the present oA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.23,15,314.25ps (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Fifteen Thousand Three Hundred Fourteen and paise Twenty five only) (Rs.3,9O,3O7.3gps + Rs.g,74,SOO/_ + Rs.1O,5O,5O6.87ps) with future interest @ 13.600lo p.a from 03.06.2024 till the date of reatization and in default for hypothecated movables as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶21

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that defendant No.1 and 2 availed term loan of Rs,14,25,000/- and cash credit of Rs.9,50,000/- vide sanction letter dated 14.03.2022 for purchase of machinery and for day to day business activities. The defendants hypothecated the machinery situated in the place of business more fully described in the schedule to oA in favour of Appricant bank. It is submitted by the Appricant 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 08.09.2023 and issued demand notice dated 3t.03.2024. Inspite of demands made by Applicant the defendants ularized the account, and the defendants did not come 7 45" f the same. The total claim of Applicant against &-" .,1 defendants is Rs.23,15,314.25ps (Rupees Twenty Three =^14|Ug2W Lakhs Fifteenl ousand Three Hundred Fourteen and paise

¶22

(OA.No.478 of 2024)

¶23

Twenty five only) (Rs.3,9O,3O7.3gps + Rs.g,74,5OOl- + Rs.10,5O,5O6.87ps) with future interest @ 13.600lo p.a from 03.06.2024 till the date of realization. Hence the OA.

¶24

The Defendants filed written statement and denied the averments made in OA. The defendants denied the execution of documents and hypothecation of machinery / movabres. It is submitted that the Applicant bank charged exorbitant charges as rate of interest. It is further submitted by the defendants that they were regular in repaying the loan amount and they denied the classification of account as NPA without following the RBI guidelines and contended that the OA is neither maintainable nor tenable. Hence prayed for dismissal of OA.

¶25

The Applicant Bank in support of its claim, filed evidence affidavit duly sworn in by Sri Banoth^prasad, GpA holder of Bank as AW.1 and through him marked 30 documents as Ex.A.1 to A.30, 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 his Chief Evidence. Inspite of repeated adjournments, the defendants failed to file evidence filing Defendant Evidence Affidavit was

¶26

(oA.No.478 of 2024)

¶27

I have perused the documents^placed on record'

¶28

Now, the points that arise for consideration^are:

¶29

i) Whether the Applicant Bank has^{proved its claim as madein} OA against the defendants^?

¶30

ii) To what relief ?

¶31

Point No.i):

¶32

As^per the documents^{filedby the ApplicantBank and also as per the} admissions made by the defendants^{in the Written statement, it is} very clear that the defendants have availed^{loan from the Applicant} Bank, but failed to repay the amount.^{All the amounts paid by the} defendants are clearly^{mentioned in the statementof accountfiled by} Applicant Bank. The defendants have^{not placed any material} documents to show their bonafides^{for establishing thatthe} schedule^property was not^{hypothecated in favour of Applicantbank.}

¶33

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 Under} such circumstances, the evidence of AW.1 coupled^withrecitals Ex.A.1 to A.30 stood unchallenged and unrebutted.^{The Applicant} established that the defendants are liable to^{pay the OA} licant bank.

fo--W

(OA.No.478 of 2024)

Point No.ii)

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

¶38

The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.23,15,314.25ps (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Fifteen Thousand Three Hundred Fourteen and paise Twenty five only) (Rs.3,9O,3O7.38ps + Rs.8,74,5OOl- + Rs.1O,5O,5O6.87ps) with future interest @ 13.600lo p.a from 03.06.2024 till the date of realization ;

¶39

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

¶40

The Applicant Bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants towards realization of the debt due.

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶44

Communicate a copy of the order to the parties concerned.

¶45

transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on 2025],

¶46

{f- ffi-'-S
iX llrulzW
WW

¶47

sd/-

¶48

TRUE COPY (G. GOPTCHAND) $sfi,s PRESIDING OFFICER Assr, F''rstrar L] | q DRTy.^Hy06Re8Ar.-/

Bank of Baroda v. Mrs. Malothu Mamatha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Mrs. Malothu Mamatha

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

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Sharvani Industries

State Bank of India versus Sri Bolla Ramana Reddy

M/S. Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation versus M/S. Jgb Enterprises

Ms Alex Logistics versus Punjab National Bank

Chandrasekhara Oil Industries versus Union Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Smt. Chittimelli Bharathi