Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Mr. Seemala Sivaprasad

DRT30 Oct 2025OA/614/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed an original application filed by the Bank of Baroda against the defendant for repayment of a loan of Rs. 24.78 lakhs with interest and costs, noting the defendant's ex-parte absence.

What did the court decide?

Defendant ordered to pay Rs. 24,78,772.44 with future interest and costs; bank entitled to sell hypothecated vehicle and proceed against defendant's properties; Recovery Certificate directed.

Bank of Baroda versus Mr. Seemala Sivaprasad — DRT (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 3OTH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶2

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.COM., L.LB.^(HONS.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 614 OF 2025

¶4

Bank of Baroda., Bathalapalle Branch, Bathalapalle Sri Sathya Sai Dist, A.P - 515661. Rep. by its Manager.

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mr. Seemala Sivaprasad S/o. Sri. Seemala Nallappa, Age 48 Years R/o. No.6-4-556-2, Managala Vari Colony Anantapur, Anantapur Dist, A. P-515001.

¶8

...Defendant

¶9

: M/s.Trivikram Chitturu Counsel for the Applicant Defendant : Ex-Parte

¶10

:: CLLD-E& ::

¶11

The Applicant Bank flled the^present OA for the^{recoverya total} sum of Rs.24,78,772.44ps from the defendant with^future interest @10.80o/o p.a. with monthly rests from the date^of application till the date of realization along with^costs andⁱⁿ default for sale of hypothecated vehicle.

¶12

Summon served on sole defendant and was set^ex-parteon 30.10.2025 as called absent and^{no representation.}

¶13

M*ob

¶14

2 oA.NO.614/2025

¶15

The Applicant Bank examined A.Surendranath, Manager, as AW-1 and marked 08 documents through him as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.08.

¶16

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

¶17

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶18

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

¶19

As stated supra, the Defendant remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs.A.1 to A.08 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.

¶20

In the result, the present Original Application No.614/2025 is allowed as under: -

¶21

r) The Defendant is liabte to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.24,78,772,44ps with future interest @10.80o/o p.a. simple from the date of application ti the date of realization;

¶22

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation of vehicle described in the sihedule annexed to the OA and the fu,v9

¶23

oA.NO.614/202s

¶24

¶25

applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶26

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

¶27

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶28

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

¶29

Issue Recovery Certiflcate accordingly.

¶30

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 30rh Day ofOctober, 2025).

¶31

)I/L5 OTHE) FICER

Bank of Baroda v. Mr. Seemala Sivaprasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Mr. Seemala Sivaprasad

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

Ms SIta Trading versus Union Bank of India

Kapeeshwar Roto Packaging Pvt. Ltd. versus Union Bank of India

Andhra Pradesh Grameena Bank versus Mr. K Manohar

Hdfc Bank versus Sri Laxmi Fertilizers

Bank of Baroda versus Dasari Janardhana

V Kondal Raj versus Union Bank of India