Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Sri. Ponguvala Naresh

DRT27 Nov 2025OA/489/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte Original Application, the Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank's claim for loan recovery totaling approximately 42.46 lakh rupees with interest and costs, holding the defendants jointly and severally liable and directing the issuance of a recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendants were directed to pay Rs. 42,46,530.76 with interest, proceed against hypothecated assets, the bank was granted costs, and a Recovery Certificate was issued.

Bank of Baroda versus Sri. Ponguvala Naresh — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶3

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

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO: 489 OF 2025

¶5

Bank of Baroda.,

¶6

Boinpally Branch No. 155, Sector C Sikh Road, Boinpally, Secunderabad Telangana - 500009. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶7

.....Applicant.

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sri. Ponguvala Naresh, S/o. Ponguvala

¶10

Babu, H.No.1-92, Habibillaguda Maheshwaram Mandal, Gollor Rangareddy, Hyderabad - 509325.

¶11

Smt. Ponguvala Laxml, Wo. Ponguvala Babu, H.No.1-92, Habibillaguda Maheshwaram lvlandal, Gollor Rangareddy, Hyderabad - 509325.

¶12

...Defendants

¶13

: Mr. M. Kishore Counsel for the Applicant

Defendants

: Ex-parte

::^qLLE& ::

The Applicant Bank flled the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.42,46,530.76ps as on 25.03.2025 towards Loan A/c. No.24730600004667 from the defendants joinUy and severally with future interest @10.9070 p.a. plus @2olo penal charges from 25.03.2025 till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of hypothecated assets.

¶18

08,

¶19

oA.NO.489/2025

¶20

Summons served on D1 & 2 through paper publication. They were set ex-parte on 13.10.2025 as called absent and no representation.

¶21

The Applicant Bank examined^prathima Tekumudi, Chief Manager, as AW-l and marked 10 documents through her as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.10.

¶22

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

¶23

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶24

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA hypothecated d55et5i

¶25

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.10 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶26

In the result, the present Original Application No.489/2025 is allowed as under: -

¶27

l) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.42,46,530.7 6?s towards Loan A/c. No. 24730600004667 with future interest O+i''r.,

¶28

oA.NO.489/2025

¶29

@10.90olo^p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶33

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

¶34

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶35

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27rh Day of November, 2025).

¶36

.,__r

¶37

,z^{'{\trnq_-,,r1h} l_.'-rr.l*''"

¶38

(RXMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

¶39

Bank of Baroda v. Sri. Ponguvala Naresh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Sri. Ponguvala Naresh

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

Canara Bank versus M/S. Sree Camphor Works

Idfc First Bank Ltd. Now versus Kancharla Srinadh

Idfc First Bank Limited Now versus Sri Nidhi Carbonic Gases

Union Bank of India versus Sate Venkata Srinivas

M/S. Icici Bank Limited versus Jagannath Ram

M/S. Icici Bank Limited versus G. Jayamma