Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Gruha Hygiene Concepts

DRT22 Oct 2025OA/497/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Bank of Baroda for recovery of term loan and cash credit dues. Court granted recovery against defendants and their hypothecated assets after finding defendants failed to substantiate their defenses.

What did the court decide?

Liability to pay Rs.22,57,249.49 with future interest, secured by hypothecation of assets; recovery against persons and properties; costs awarded.

Bank of Baroda versus Gruha Hygiene Concepts — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶3

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

¶4

ORIGINAL APPUCATION NO, 497 OF 2024

¶5

Bank of Baroda Ja mia Osmania Branch Warsiguda, Secunderabad. Rep by its Branch Manager. ...... .Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s. Gruha Hygiene Concepts Rep by its Proprietor - Mr. Duddu Koteswara Rao zone 10, D.No.5-9-262/ P-34/ D Rajiv Gandhi Nagar Prashanthi Nagar, Kukatpa lly Hydera bad, T.G. 500 018.

¶8

Mr. Duddu Koteswara Rao S/o Sri Duddu Bulliyya Age: 43 years, Float No.30 Yogitha Enclave Vivekananda Nagar Colony Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500072.

¶9

..... Defendants.

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant : lvl/s. Trivikram Chitturu. Counsel for the Defendants : M/s. G. Bhanu Murthy.

¶11

:: ORDER::

¶12

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA u/s 19 of The Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993 for recovery of a sum of Rs.9,44,610.79Ps towards Term Loan account and Rs.13,12,638.70 towards Cash Credit Loan account jointly and severally from the defendants with future -irterest @17.50% O%ve

¶13

¶14

o{.497n024

¶15

per annum with monthly rests from the date of Application tlll the date of realisation along with costs and sale of OA schedule hypothecated assets.

¶16

The averments of the OA, in brief, are; defendants availed a cash credit of Rs.13 lakhs and term loan facility of Rs.17 lakhs for business^purposes vide sanction letter dated 27.72.2079 by executing all requlslte loan documents including composite hypothecation agreement detailing the terms and conditions. Defendants defaulted to repay the loans as^per the agreed terms. Accordingly, the loan accounts were classified as^NPA on 23.0.2024. Despite recall notice dated 71.06.2024, defendants failed to clear the dues. Hence the^{present OA is} filed.

¶17

Defendants filed written statement. The relevant averments of the written statement ln brief, are; applicant released the loan amounts at its whims and fancies after one^year and therefore they would constitute breach of contract. Due to the delay ln release of sanctioned loan amounts, the documents executed in anticipation of release of sanctioned credit limits are not valid and barred by limitation. As the loan documents were signed out of anxiety to get the loans, the said documents are not admissible under the law. The account was running regularly, therefore, it cannot be classified as NPA. The amount outstanding is less than Rs.20 lakhs. Therefore only Civil Courts can only have right to adjudicate the dispute of applicant bank. Application is barred by limitation. Applicant has not responded to OTS proposal daled 20.O7.2024.^ Hence defendants pray for dismissal of the oA with costs.^'7fu'r1f -/

¶18

oA-191/2021

¶19

In order to prove its claim, the Applicant Bank examined Kola Sunil Kumar, Branch Manager, as AW-1 and marked 11 documents through him as Ex. A. 1 to Ex. A.11.

¶20

Defendants right of evidence has been forfeited vide docket order dated 25.08.2025 for non-representation on their behalf.

¶21

Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant bank. Defendants right to argue has been forfeited vide docket order dated 14.10.2025 for there being no representation on their behalf. Perused the material placed on record.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant bank submits that the defendants except raising some bald allegations have neither produced any evidence in support of their contentions nor did they choose to cross examine AW.1 to disprove the exhibits relied on by the applicant bank. Hence, the contentions raised by the defendants are baseless and need not be considered. Consequently, applicant bank proved its claim against the defendants. With these submissions, learned counsel prayed for allowing the OA claim in favour of the applicant bank and against the defendants.

¶23

The point that arises for consideratlon is:-

¶24

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the OA claim against the Defendants and against the Hypothecated assets?

¶25

Despite denying the OA claim on the^grounds of limitation due to delay in release of sanctioned loan amounts,^pecuniary jurisdiction, non-consideration of OTS proposal ameng others, ow"

¶26

oA.19T t2021

¶27

defendants failed to choose to place on record any evidence ln support of their contentions nor did they confront AW.1 to disprove the veracity of the documents relied on by the applicant bank. It is settled law position that any amount of pleadings without supporting material is of no relevance. Under these circumstances, the Evidence Affidavit of AW.1 coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.11 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank, remains un-rebutted and unchallenged. Hence, I hold that defendants are liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs,

¶28

In the result, the present Original Application No.4g7/2024 is allowed as under: -

¶29

i) defendants are liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.22,57,249.49ps (Term Loan dues of Rs.9,44,610.79ps and Cash Credit dues of Rs.13,12,638.70ps) atong with interest @9.50o/o per annum simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶30

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation of movable assets described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entiued to proceed against the same for recovery of its dues;

¶31

iji) the applicant bank is entiued to proceed against the person and properties of defendants for realization of its dues; and

¶32

iv) the applicant bank is entiued for the costs. ,.h

¶33

///Y.o''q

¶34

(-./

¶35

oA.497 /2024

¶36

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

¶37

t2. Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶38

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload in Web Portal.

¶39

(Dictated to the steno, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22'd day of octob et,2025.l

¶40

ti:r.r9

¶41

ESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Bank of Baroda v. Gruha Hygiene Concepts

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Gruha Hygiene Concepts

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S. Dharneesh Gold Pvt. Ltd.

Union Bank of India versus M/S. Camon Frames

Karur Vysya Bank Limited versus M/S. Sree Usha Medical Distributors

Ms Lords Hosiery Materials And Garments versus Dcb Bank Limited

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Shravya Logistics

Indian Overseas Bank versus M/S. Yashomedha Enterprises