Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Rapalle Charanraj

DRT26 Dec 2025OA/881/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by Bank of Baroda for recovery of a loan sum of Rs. 25,75,336.37 from the defendant, declaring liability and authorizing proceedings against hypothecated vehicle and other properties for realization.

What did the court decide?

Order passed for payment of loan sum, future interest, costs, and authority to proceed against hypothecated vehicle and other properties.

Bank of Baroda versus Rapalle Charanraj — Execution and Attachment | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF DECEIVIBER, 2025

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No : 881 0F 2025

¶4

Bank of Baroda., Kurnool N R Peta Branch. Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Repalle Charanraj, S/o. R. Prabhakar Aged about 25 Years, Occ: Business R/o. H. No.76-97-375-4, Weeker Section Colony, Kallur, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh-518003.

¶8

. .. Defenda nts

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. G. Venkat Sri f4aithreya

¶10

Defendants :Ex-parte

¶11

::^qLq-LL ::

¶12

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs.25,75,336.37ps towards Loan A/c. No. 24210600005509 from the defendant with future interest @10.70olo^p.a. with^monthly rests frcm^26.06.2025 till the^date of realization along with costs and in default for sale of hypothecated vehicle.

¶13

Summon served on sole defendant and was set ex-parte on 1A.12.2025 as called absent and no representation.

¶14

The Applicant Bank examined Umesha Naika, Manager, as AW1 and marked 14 documents through him as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.14.

/rv"/

oA.NO.881/2025

Ld. Counsel for the Applicant Bank stated orders may be passed

¶19

on merits. Perused the material placed on record.

¶20

The point that arises for consideration is:_

¶21

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

¶22

As stated supra, the Defendant remained ex-parte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs.A.l to A.14 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 ctaim to the Applicant Bank with future interest and costs.

¶23

In the result, the present Original Application No.8g1/2025 is allowed as under: -

¶24

i) The Defendant is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum of Rs.25,75,336.37ps towards Loan A/c. No. 24210600005509 with future interest @1O.7oolo p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶25

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation of vehicle described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank^js entiued to proceed against the same to reatise its debti^h, ./

¶26

oA.NO.881/202s

¶27

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

¶28

iv) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶29

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

¶30

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶31

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 26th Day of December, 2025).

¶32

,'/"w*'",..4, (RATTESHWAR KOTHE) PRESIDING OFFICER

Bank of Baroda v. Rapalle Charanraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Rapalle Charanraj

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

Indian Bank versus M/S. Balaji Agri Chem

Canara Bank versus M/S.Micro Cables

M/S. Yes Bank Limited versus Mr. Potharaju Swamy

Canara Bank versus M/S Aqua Polyplast

M/s. Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus Bondili Madhu Reddy

State Bank of India versus Mr. Dandu Prasad