Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. M/S. Deeksha Enterprises

DRT24 Jun 2025OA/558/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the applicant bank's original application for recovery of dues. The defendants were declared jointly and severally liable to pay the loan amount along with interest, costs, and penal charges based on the evidence presented.

What did the court decide?

Defendants declared jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 21,69,342.94 plus interest; hypothecated assets to be utilized for realization; recovery certificate to be issued.

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Deeksha Enterprises — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TR]BUNAL-II AT HYDEMBAD DATED THIS THE 24N1 DAY OF ]UNE, 2025

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 558 OF 2024

¶4

Bank of Baroda., Puttur Branch, Chittoor District. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s. Deekha Enterprises., Rep by its Prop: Mr.R.Ditip R/o.1-9, Malla Reddy Kandriga Sriharipuram Village, Vijayapuram Mandal, Chittoor District - 517586.

¶8

1.4r. R. Dilip, S/o. Mr. R.Govindaia h, Aged 24 Years, Occ: Business, R/o.1-9, Malla Reddy Ka ndriga Sriharipuram Village, Vijayapuram lvlandal, chittoor District - 517586.

¶9

... Defendants

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant

¶11

: [4/s.Trivikram Chitturu

Defendants

:Ex-parte

:: ORDER ::

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.21,69,342.94ps i.e., a sum of Rs.9,44,842.94ps under Term Loan and Rs,72,24,5O0/ - under FDR Term Loan from the defendants jointly and severally with future interest @11.650lo^{p.a. plus penal} interest with monthly rests from the N**

¶16

oA.NO.ss8/2024

¶17

date of application till the date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of hypothecated assets.

¶18

Summons served on D1 and 2. They were set ex-parte on 07.03.2025 as called absent and no representation.

¶19

The Applicant Bank examined Subramanyam Buduru, Manager, as AW-1 and marked 19 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.19.

¶20

Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank reported orders may be passed through merits. perused the material placed on record.

¶21

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶22

Whether the Applicant Bank is enti ed for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants and OA hypothecated assefsT

¶23

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A.19 marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of the Applicant Bank against the Defendants. Hence, I hold that the Defendants are joinHy and severally liable to pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶24

In the result, the present Original Application No.558/2024 is allowed as under: -

¶25

i) The Defendants are joinfly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant B^ank a sum of fu'v"

¶26

oA.NO.ss8/2024

¶27

Rs.21,69,342.94ps i.€., a sum of Rs.9,44,842.94ps under Term Loan and Rs.12,24,500/- under FDR Term Loan with future interest @11.65olo p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶28

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;

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly,

¶32

Communicate a copy of this order to the^pafties concerned. (Dlctated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24rh Day of June, 2025).

¶33

PRESIDING OFFICER

Bank of Baroda v. M/S. Deeksha Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. M/S. Deeksha Enterprises

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

State Bank of India versus Thathari Naveen Kumar

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Voruganti Shailaja

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S. v R Global

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus M/S. Bvrr Foods Processing Industries Private Limited

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Mr. a Panchakshari Reddy

M/S. Yes Bank Limited. versus Mrs. Padela Navya