Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Mrs. Mugala Suprita

DRT6 Mar 2026OA/1086/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debts Recovery Tribunal-II at Hyderabad allowed Original Application No. 1086/2025 filed by Bank of Baroda. Upon the defendant remaining ex-parte, the Tribunal held the defendant liable to pay Rs. 90,74,592.60 with future interest and costs, permitting recovery from hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

The defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 90,74,592.60 with future interest @10.80% p.a. and costs. The bank may proceed against hypothecated assets and defendant's properties for reali

Bank of Baroda versus Mrs. Mugala Suprita — DRT (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL-II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶3

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

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 1086 OF 2OZs

¶5

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

¶6

.....Applicant.

¶7

VerSuS

¶8

Mrs. Mugala Suprita W/o Mr. M. Surendra Babu, Aged 27 yrs, Female, R/o H. No.2-262,^ponnapuram, Nandayal Dist, A.P. - 518 501

¶9

,..Defendant

¶10

Counsel for the Applicant : M/s. Trivikram Chitturu

¶11

Counsel for the Defendant : Ex-parte

¶12

:: ORDER ;:

¶13

1, The Applicant Bank filed the present OA for the recovery a total sum of Rs. 90,74,592.60 ps with future interest @10.80% 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. /Xy*

¶14

oA.NO.1086/2025

¶15

Summon^{served on Sole Defendant through paper publication} and was set^{exparteon 23'02'2026as called absent andno} representation.

¶16

? The Applicant^{Bank examined Mr' V' Chandraiah'Senior} Associate, as^{AW-1 and marked 12 documents through him as} Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.12.

¶17

Heard ex-pafte^{arguments from the Ld' Counsel of the} Applicant^{Bank.Perusedthe materialplaced on record'}

¶18

The^point that^{arises for considerationis: -}

¶19

Whether the Appticant^{Bank is entitled} for the claim^{madein the OA against} the Defendant and^{OA hYPothecated} assetsT

¶20

As stated supra, the^{Defendant remained ex-parte' The} Evidence Affidavit^{coupledwith the recitals in the documents} viz., Exs.A.1 to A'12^{marked on behalf of the Applicant Bank} clinches the claim^{of the ApplicantBank against the Defendant'} Hence, I hold that^{the Defendant is liable to pay the OA claim to} the Applicant^{Bank with future interestand costs'}

¶21

In the result, the^{present Original ApplicationNo'1086/2025 is} allowed as under:^-

¶22

i) The Sole Defendant is^{jointly and severally} liable to^pay to the Applicant^{Bank a sum Rs'} 90,74,592.60 PS with future^interest @10.80o/o^{p.a. simple from the da,lqof} application fitt tne Oate^{of realization} rffitt

¶23

oA.NO.1086/2025

¶24

ii) the OA^{claim issecured bY waY of} hypothecation of^{assets as describedin the} schedule annexed^{tothe OA and the} applicant bank^{is entitledto proceed against} the same to^{realise its debU}

¶25

iii) ' the applicant^{bank is also entitled to proceed-} against the^{person and properties of} defendant^{for realization of its dues;}

¶26

iv) the applicant^{bank is entitledfor the costs'}

¶27

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

¶28

Issue Recovery^{Certificate accordingly'}

¶29

Communicate^{a copy of this order to the parties concerned'}

¶30

(Dictated to the steno, corrected,^{signedand pronouncedbymein the open court on} this the 6th^{Day of March, 2026).}

Bank of Baroda v. Mrs. Mugala Suprita

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Mrs. Mugala Suprita

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

Canara Bank versus M/s. Pp Engineering

Icici Bank Limited versus M/s Sunkari Apparao Gold Spot

Ayyanna It Park LLP Rep by P Sreedhar versus State Bank of India

Bank of Maharashtra versus Mr. Munjeti Chiranjeevi

M/S. Yes Bank Ltd. versus Mr. Vikas Agarwal

State Bank of India versus Sri Jagannath Industries