Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. M/S. Vasundheara Opticals

DRT25 Sept 2025OA/88/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed an Original Application filed by Bank of Baroda for recovery of dues from optical shop owners. The bank proved the loan default through documents, while the defendants failed to substantiate their claims of defective documentation with evidence, as their counsel was absent.

What did the court decide?

Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.21,60,651/- along with interest; bank is entitled to proceed against defendant's person and properties for realization.

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

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDEMBAD DATED THIS THE TWENryFIFTH DAY OF SEPTEPIBER, 2025 PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Com, L.LB. (Hons.). M a PRESIDING OFFICER

¶2

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 8A OF 2022

¶3

Bank of Baroda Nizampet Branch Hyderabad Rep. by its Chief Manager.

¶4

.......Applicant.

¶5

Versus

¶6

M/s. Vasundheara Opticals Rep by Proprietor Ivl rs. Nandigama Laxmi Plot No.1, 1st Floor (Mumbai Complex) Beside Mega Theatre P & T Colony Dilsu khnagar Colony Saroornagar, Hyderabad-60.

¶7

Mrs. Nandigama Laxmi Wo^{N. Aniah,} R/o 9-40 Lalitha Nagar, P &T Colony Beside lvlega Theatre Dilsukhnagar Colony Saroornagar, Hyderabad-60.

¶8

..... Defenda nts.

¶9

Counsel forthe Applicant : Mr. Mannava Sravan Kumar. Counsel for Defendants : Ms. V. Babitha.

¶10

:: ORDER::

¶11

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA u/s 19 of The Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993 for recovery of Rs.21,60,651/.'',.,

¶12

oa.8812022

¶13

jointly and severally from the^{defendantswith futureinterest} @10.85%^{per annum compoundedmonthlyincludingpenal} interest @2Vo^{from the date of Applicationtill the date of} realisation along^{withcosts and sale OA schedule assets'}

¶14

The averments of^{the OA, in brief, are; defendants avalled Cash} credit of Rs.1O,OO,OO0/-^{vide sanction letter dated 15'03'2017,} foltowed by term^loan of^{Rs.10,00,000/-,Covid Loan of} Rs.54,704/- and FATIL^{loan of Rs.62,583/-.Due to irregular} conduct of loan account, the^{same has become NPA. Applicant} bank issued legal^notice on^{75.12.202L to clear the outstanding} dues amounting to Rs.21,60,651/-.^{Sincethe defendants failed} to discharge the liability, the^{present OA is filed'}

¶15

Defendants filed written statement.^{The avermentsof the} written statement in brief, are; the OA is^{suffers from} suppression of facts. The loan documentation,^agreements, supplemental agreements are^{not properly stamped.The} authorised officer is to be^put strict^{proof of authorityto file the} OA. The statements of account are^{lnflated for the purposeof} OA claim. Loan account was^{classified during Covid. Pandemic} and NPA classification is against^{RBI guidelines. Applicantbank} suppressed the fact that the^{loan was sanctioned underself-} employment scheme. Applicant bank has to support^the defendants in bad times of situation by cooperating^to regularise. Applicant has not filed the terms of^{legal charges} and recovery charges as^pr SBI^pollcy. With^{these pleadings,} defendants^prayed for dismissal of OA.

¶16

The Applicant Bank examined Dipty Tirkey, Manager. as AW-1 and marked 13 documents through him as Ex. A.1 to Ex. A.13.

¶17

/N^u

¶18

oa.aa/2o22

¶19

Defendant No.2 proprietor of defendant No.1 examined herself as DW1, but has not marked any documents.

¶20

Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant bank.

¶21

Defendants right of arguments forfeited vide docket order dated 23.08.2025 for non- representation. perused the written

¶22

arguments filed by the parties and the material placed on record.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant bank submits that the defendant availed loan to meet the business requirements. However, defendant defaulted in repayment. The pleadings and contentions taken in the written statement are baseless, invented for the purpose of avoiding the liability by one way or the other. The defendants neither led any evidence or cross examined AW.1 to substantiate the allegations raised in the written statement. On the other hand, applicant bank has proved its claim by placing on record exhibits A.1 to A.13 material papers. With these pleadings, learned counsel prayed for allowing the OA claim in favour of the applicant bank and against the defendants.

¶24

The point that arises for consideration is:-

¶25

Whether the Applicant Bank is enti ed for the OA claim against the Defendants?

¶26

In the written statement, defendants did not whisper on the availmet of loan and default in repayment. What all pleaded is for dismissal of OA citing defective documentation and invalid evidence. However, defendants failed to adduce any evidence or confront applicant bank by way of cross examination of AW.1 /A%*P (-j/

¶27

oA.8812022

¶28

to substantiate^{those allegations'Mere assertionswithout} supporting meterial^{evidence bear no significance'In view of} these facts and^{circumstances,the EvidenceAffidavit of AW'1} coupled with the^{recitals in the documents viz'' Exs' A'1to A'13} marked on behalf^{of the Applicant Bank, remainsun-rebutted} and unchallenged.^{Hence, I hold that defendants are jointlyand} severally liable to^{pay the OA claim to the Applicant Bank with} future interest^{and costs'}

¶29

In the result, the^{present Original ApplicationNo'88/2022 is} allowed as under:^-

¶30

i) defendants are^{jointly and severally liable to} pay to the Applicant Bank a total sum^of Rs.21,60,651/- along with^interest @10,85o/o per annum simPle from the date of application till the date of^realization;

¶31

ii) the applicant bank is entitled to^proceed against the^person and^{properties of} defendants for realization of its^{dues; and}

¶32

iv) the applicant bank is entitled^{for the costs.}

¶33

The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost^{Memo within2 weeks} from the date of receipt of this Order.

¶34

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶35

Communicate a copy of this order to the^{partiesconcernedand} upload in Web Portal.

¶36

(Dictated to the steno, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of September,2025.)

¶37

r 1r,._,...-: 'rb " (RAMESFiWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Bank of Baroda v. M/S. Vasundheara Opticals

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. M/S. Vasundheara Opticals

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

M/S. Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Mr. B Rajaiah

Kothamidde Venkataramana versus Hdfc Bank

Kalla Rajeshwari versus South Indian Bank

Canara Bank versus K. Kranthi Kumar Reddy Masu

Bank of India versus M/S. Suvidha Petrochemicals Private Limited

State Bank of India versus Muneeswara Traders