Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. M/S. Kranthi Cement Bricks

DRT15 Dec 2025OA/800/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dr. dealt with an Original Application by Bank of Baroda for recovery of Rs.25,89,571/- from defendants. Being ex-parte, the Tribunal held the claim well-founded, declared defendants jointly and severally liable, and allowed the application with interest and costs. Recovery Certificate issued.

What did the court decide?

Defendants held jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.25,89,571/- plus future simple interest @9.25% p.a. and costs. Recovery Certificate issued.

Bank of Baroda versus M/S. Kranthi Cement Bricks — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶3

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

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

Original Application No: 800 OF 2025

¶6

Bank of Baroda., Sahebnagar Branch, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶7

...Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

M/s. Kranthi Cement Bricks., Rep by its Proprietor, A.Jaihinder R/o.Sy.No.276, Kuntloor Village Pedda Amberpet, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy - 501505.

¶10

A. laihinder

¶11

R/o. Plot No.183, Hastinapuram Village, Saroornagar - 500079.

¶12

...... Defendants

¶13

Counsel for the Applicant

Mr. Kurangi Manoj

Defendants

Ex-^pa rte

:: :: Qf,[f[-

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA for the recovery of^{a total} sum of Rs.25,89,571/- from the defendants^jointly and severally with future interest @11.50o/o^p.a. compounded monthly^including penal interest @2olo from the date of application till the date of realisation along with costs.

¶19

Summons served on D1 and² through Paper^publication. They were set ex-parte on 11.12.2025 as w*

¶20

oA.No.800/2025

¶21

¶22

The Applicant Bank examined Sarita Sharma, Chief Manager as AWI and marked 18 documents through her as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.18.

¶23

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

¶24

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶25

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendants?

¶26

As stated supra, the Defendants remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs. A.1 to A. 18 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.

¶27

In the result, the present Original Application No.800/2025 is allowed as under: -

¶28

i) The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.25,89,571l- with future interest @9.25o/o p.a. simple, from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶29

ii) the applicant bank is also entiued to proceed against the person and properties of the defendant for rea lization of its dues;

¶30

iii) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶31

t_),. ,fiff,,q

¶32

OA.No.800/202s

¶33

B, The Applicant Bank ls 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., transcribed by him, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of December, 2025).

¶36

.'r\r!q

¶37

(RAMESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Bank of Baroda v. M/S. Kranthi Cement Bricks

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. M/S. Kranthi Cement Bricks

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

The Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Suram Dinesh

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Yarlagadda Nagender Rao

Indian Bank versus M/s. Manikya Traders Proprietorship

Icici Bank Limited versus Perupaka Venkatesh

Icici Bank Limited versus M. Vijay Kumar

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/S. Sri Hanuman Electrical Engineering Works