Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Mrs. Pagidi Jayamma

DRT17 Apr 2026OA/104/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allowed an original application filed by Bank of Baroda against Mrs. Pagidi Jayamma for recovery of Rs. 77,25,802.98 with future interest. Finding the defendant in default, the tribunal held her liable and granted the bank costs via recovery certificate.

What did the court decide?

Defendant to pay Rs. 77,25,802.98 with future interest at 11.70% p.a.; recovery certificate issued; costs granted.

Bank of Baroda versus Mrs. Pagidi Jayamma — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF APRIL, 2A26

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 104 OF 2A26

¶4

Bank of Baroda, Nandyal Branch, Nandyal, Nandyal District Rep by its Authorised Officer

¶5

.....Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mrs. Pagidi Jayamma W/o.Sri. Pagidi Shakar, Aged 39 yrs, Female, Occ: Business, R/o. D.No.9-144-L, Ramakrishna Puram, Palukuru, Banaganpalli, Nandyal Dist, A.P. - 5t7t76

¶8

...Defendant

¶9

: M/s. Trivikram Chitturu Counsel for the Applicant

¶10

Counsel for the Defendant : Ex-parte

¶11

:: ORDER ::

¶12

The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs. 77,25,802.98 ps with future interest @11.70olo^p.a. from the date of filling the application till the date of realization along with costs, and in default, sale of OA hypothecated assets. fru fr u/

¶13

oA.NO.104/2026

¶14

Summon served^{on Sole Defendant and was set expafteon} L5.04.2026 as called^{absent and norepresentation'}

¶15

The Applicant^{Bank examined Mr. V. Chandraiah, Senior} Manager, as AW-1 and^{marked 14 documentsthroughhim as} Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.14.

¶16

Heard ex-parte arguments^{from the Ld. Counsel of the} Applicant Bank. Perused^{the materialplaced on record.}

¶17

The point that arises^{for considerationis: -}

¶18

Whether the Applicant^{Bank is entitled} for the claim made in the^{OA against} the Defendant and^{OA hYPothecated} assefs?

¶19

As stated supra, the Defendant^{remained ex-pafte.The} Evidence Affidavit coupled with^{the recitals in the documents} viz., Exs.A.1 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 claim to} the Applicant Bank with future interest and^costs.

¶20

In the result, the^present Original^{Application No.104/2026 is} allowed as under:^-

¶21

i) The Sole Defendant is^jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum^Rs. 77,25,802.98 ps with future interest @11.70o/o^p.a. simple^{from the date of} apprication tiil the date of reariza,'opQ;y.^"u

¶22

oA.NO.104/2026

¶23

ii) the OA claim- is secured by way of hypothecation of assets, as desclibed in the schedule annexed to the On inO applicant bank is entiUed-to proceed uguinit the same for realisation of dues;

¶24

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

¶25

iv) the applicant bank is entiUed for the costs.

¶26

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

¶27

Issue Recovery Certificate accordingly.

¶28

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned.

¶29

P]:1:*9j?:h"^{steno, corrected,signedand pronounced by me in the open court on} this the 17th Day of April, 2026).

¶30

.ul$

¶31

PRESIDING OFFICER

Bank of Baroda v. Mrs. Pagidi Jayamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Mrs. Pagidi 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

The Yes Bank Limited. versus Mr. Danne Jangaiah

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Siri Business and Infra(Sbi-Hyderabad)

Union Bank of India versus M/s. Gayathri Minerals

Idfc First Bank Ltd. Now versus Imagix Pyrolysis Plant

Repalle Salamma versus Sri Ram Finance Ltd.

Hdfc Bank Ltd. versus M/s. Sree Sada Siva Transport