Allowed

Bank of India v. Smt. Devatha Vasanthi

DRT25 Mar 2026OA/102/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the original application filed by Bank of India against borrowers and guarantors for recovery of a term loan of Rs. 21,59,355.49 plus interest. The court found the bank's evidence of documents credible and rejected the defense regarding RBI guidelines and limitation.

What did the court decide?

The defendants are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs. 21,59,355.49 with future interest at 9.25% p.a. and penal interest at 2% p.a. The bank is entitled to recover the debt from the mortgaged p

Bank of India versus Smt. Devatha Vasanthi — Contract and Commercial Disputes | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERYTRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 25rH DAy OF MARCH, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SRI GUMMADI GOPICHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

OA.No.102 ot 2023

¶5

Between:

¶6

Bank of India, Warangal branch, H.No.13-04- 158/1, Near Gopalaswamy temple, MG Road, Warangal - 506 002. Telangana State. Represented by its Manager

¶7

Applicant

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Smt Devatha Vasanthi w/o D. Sudhakar, aged about 39 years,

¶10

H.No. 16-1-1059, SRR thota,

¶11

Warangal - 506 002.

¶12

Mr. Gokarapu Suresh, S/o G. Kanakaiah, aged About 49 years, H.No.17-L-42,

¶13

Ambedkar bhavan, Karimbad,

¶14

Warangal - 506 002.

¶15

Mr. Veladandi Rajesh s/o Veladandi Kumaraswamy, H.No. 16-1-1059, SRR thota, Warangal - 506 002.

Defendants

Smt P. Suseela

Defendant

Defendants

Sri Rajan Palakurthi

Exparte

(oA.No.10212023],

Orders reservedon	: 18.03.2026
Pronouncedon	: 25.03.2026
Uploaded inwebsiteon	: 25.03.2026

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA against Defendants for recovery of a total sum of Rs.21r59r355.49ps (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Five and paise forty nine only) with future interest @ 9.25olo p.a plus penal interest @ 2o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of OA till the date of realization and in default for sale of and mortgaged property as mentioned in the schedule to OA.

¶26

As per the averments in the application, the Applicant Bank states that the defendant No.1 and 2 availed term toan for a sum of Rs.19,45,000/- and defendant no.3 stood as guarantor to the loan availed. The defendants executed promissory note, bearer letter, request letter, term loan agreement and letter of declaration etc in favour of applicant bank. The defendants mortgaged the schedule mentioned property in favour of Applicant bank and deposited the tile deeds. It is submitted by the Applicant bank that the Defendants availed the said loan facilities and failed to keep up the repayment -4tr:-:.. scnefi1"l€i,^giisuch. t.fiE3:pccount was classified as NpA on 31.03.2021 #''-+l""^::'tifu-''" ]f'd."trssueo^ffia.o''frhk '';^{dated 03.05.2021. rnspite of demands} i' .- f?!"^b? {pflfiHaffihe^{&l,bnoantshave not regut} arized the account,

¶27

i - .. , --. .t,f
,-.) -f'. I
2
'o.',t .-'"''r'--'':f{:;r];/'
'.,.; . .. ;-71", r',i-ri, i, ir,",.).:..if
+iiis:;-;.*;1x,"'

¶28

(oA.No.102/2023)

¶29

and the Applicant bank issued notices, but the defendants did not come forward to repay the same. The total claim of Applicant against defendants is of Rs.21,59,355.49ps (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Five and paise forty nine only) with future interest @ 9.25% p.a plus penal interest @ 2o/o p.a with monthly rests from date of filing of OA till the date of realization. Hence the OA.

¶30

The Defendant no.1 filed written statement and denied the averments made in OA. The defendants denied the creation of mortgage of schedule property in favour of Applicant bank. It is contended that the Application is barred by limitation. It is further contended that the Applicant bank obtained signatures on blank^papers and formats. Hence^prayed for dismissal of OA.

¶31

I have^perused the documents^placed on^record.

¶32

Heard the arguments,

¶33

that arise for consideration are:

¶34

i) Whether icant Bank has proved its claim as made in OA
?5illlfrn26 *
,!<br>n ,-i4
5

¶35

(oA.No.102/2023)

¶36

Point No.i):

¶37

Mr. Gopikrishna Bandlamudi, Manager / AW.1 who was examined on behalf of the Applicant clearly deposed about the liability of the defendants. Exhibits A.1 to A.22 are marked through AW.1. Defendant No.2 examined himself as DW.1 and filed Exhibit B.4 to 8.L4,

¶38

AW.1 was not cross examined by the defendants. Even though the 1st defendant examined himself as DW.1 and not filed any documents, his evidence is in noway helpful to him, The defendants having taken the plea that the applicant bank did not follow the RBI guidelines and that the present OA was barred by limitation, failed to place any substantial proof to that effect. Moreover, a perusal of the documents exhibited by the Applicant bank makes clear that all the relevant documents are executed by the defendant in the normal course of transaction. The defendants very vaguely contended that particulars made in the OA are not correct. But as per the statement of accounts, the defendants are liable to pay the OA claim. Considering all the circumstances, I am of opinion that the defense taken by the defendants is not tenable, Hence the applicant bank is entitled to claim the OA amount from defendants. Therefore, the OA claim

¶39

deserves to betillowed against the defendants.

¶40

.'1t i,' :-^tt i",.d i"eS\ ",'l Point No.ii) ? 5 t$fr ,ME * i t *..4r, '. .-. .q.... i ,,-J#fiqtg/

¶41

(OA.No.102/2023)

¶42

In the result, the present Original application is allowed with costs as u nder:

¶43

The Defendants No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay to Applicant Bank a total sum of Rs.21,59,355.49ps (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Five and paise forty nine only) with future interest @ 9.25olo p.a from date of filing of OA till the date of realization ;

¶44

The applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the mortgaged propefty as mentioned in the schedule to OA towards realization of the debt due.

¶45

The Applicant bank is also entitled to proceed against the person and properties of defendants towards realization of the debt due.

¶46

The Applicant Bank is entitled to the costs of the OA.

¶47

t2. The Applicant shall file a cost memo within two weeks from the date of receipt of order.

¶48

Issue Recovery certificate accordingly.

¶49

C_qmmunicate a copy of the order to the pafties concerned.

¶50

transcribed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on 2026)

¶51

sdl-
CORY
? 5 i'AR m2[ : .-.h+*-GOPICHAND)
Asst. Rcglsrrar (t yi rPnESlDtNG OFFICER

Bank of India v. Smt. Devatha Vasanthi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of India v. Smt. Devatha Vasanthi

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

K Vinay Kumar versus State Bank of India

State Bank of India versus Mrs. Bandla Sumalatha

Cyrus Diagnostic Centre Rep by its Managing Partner versus PNB Housing Finance Limited

Kothasamu Bhasker Rao versus M S Pridhvi Asset Reconstruction and Securitisation Company Limited

Mohammed Sajeed versus Telangana Grameena Bank

State Bank of India versus M/S Sri Ganga Beverages