Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Veeramasu Jayamma

DRT27 Jan 2026OA/1025/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appealed debtor’s rebuttal; Debt Recovery Tribunal allowed the bank’s application for recovery of a rupees twenty-nine lakh and ninety-seven thousand rupees debt with interest and costs, ruling the defendant liable.

What did the court decide?

Defendant directed to pay Rs 29,97,226.42 with future interest at 11.70% p.a. from date of application till date of realization, with costs; applicant directed to issue Recovery Certificate.

Bank of Baroda versus Veeramasu Jayamma — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

¶2

]N THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-I] AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF ]ANUARY, 2026

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR]{9IH^E1-B.gom , L.LB. (Hons.), 14.A.

¶4

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶5

Original Application No: 1025 OF 2O2S

¶6

Bank of Baroda.,

¶7

Nandyal Bra-nch, Nandyat, Nandyal District. (ep. by its Authorized Officer.

¶8

"APPlica^nt

¶9

versus

¶10

f4rs..Veeramasu Jayamma, D/o.Mr.Satya Babu Aged..Years, Ivlale, Occ: Business, R/o.7_1g l.4undlapadu, Giddalur Mandal, prakasam Dist AP - 523367.

¶11

.....Derendant

¶12

Counsel for the Applicant

¶13

Defenda nts

¶14

Mr, Trivikram Ch itturu

¶15

Ex - pa rte

¶16

:: oRDER ::

¶17

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery of a sum of Rs-29,97,226.42ps towards TL & OD Loan from the defendant with future interest @ll.7oo/o p.a. with monthly rests from the date of application till the date of realisation along with costs.

¶18

Summon sent to sole defendant returned with endorsement refused hence, deemed to be served and was set ex-parte on 22.0i.2026 as called absent and no representauon.

¶19

The Applicant Bank examined C Siva Krishna, Sr. Branch Ma nager

¶20

^.72. as AW-1 and marked 12 documents 0wthrouoh him as Ex. A.1 to Ex.

¶21

OA.No.102s/2025

¶22

Heard the^{Ld. Counsel for the ApplicantBank' Perused the material} placed on record.

¶23

The^point that^{arises for consideration is:-}

¶24

Whether the^{AppticantBank is entitted for} the ctaim made^{in the OA againstthe} Defendant?

¶25

As stated supra,^{the Defendant remainedex-parte'The Evidence} Affidavitcoupledwiththerecitalsinthedocumentsviz.,Exs.A'1to A.12 marked on^{behalf of the Applicant Bank clinches the claim of} the Applicant^{Bank against the Defendant'Hence, I hold that the}

¶26

,^{D,e(endrurtis^l ipble ig pav,r1*-p4ffilrn,r te^theJpplica nL, Ban k with} future interest^{and costs.}

¶27

In the result, the^{present Original Application No'1025/2025is} allowed as under:^-

¶28

i) The Defendant^{is liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a} sum of Rs.29,97,226.42ps^{towardsTL & OD Loan with} future interest @11.70olo^{p.a. simple,from the date of} application till^{the date of realization;}

¶29

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

¶30

iii) the applicant bank is entitled for the costs.

¶31

The Applicant Bank is directed to file Cost Memo within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of rhis Order.AWw,,t^ Z-26't1t"c

¶32

¶33

OA.No.1025 lZo2S

¶34

' g. "ur^{y r,Er} Liltca Issue Recovery Certifica te accordingly.

¶35

Cgmmunicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned. (Dictated to the steno, transcribed [rl,i].orrected, signed and open court on this the 27th day of .lanua i,"iorul. I pronounced by me in the

¶36

{ :,,."

¶37

PRESIDING OFFICER

¶38

Bank of Baroda v. Veeramasu Jayamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Veeramasu Jayamma

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. Camon Frames.

Union Bank of India versus M/s. S RTraders.

Union Bank of India versus Mr. Kakalwar Suresh

Bank of Baroda versus Doddi Prathap

Bank of Baroda versus Doddi Prathap

The Yes Bank Limited versus Mrs. Boge Eshwari