Allowed

Bank of Baroda v. Mrs. Pidathala Maheswari

DRT9 Mar 2026OA/1087/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Debts Recovery Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by Bank of Baroda against a sole defendant who appeared ex-parte. The court held the defendant liable to pay the claimed debt, interest, and costs, and authorized recovery proceedings against the defendant and hypothecated assets.

What did the court decide?

Defendant ordered to pay Rs. 23,14,814.86 with future interest @10.80% p.a. and costs; proceedings against hypothecated assets and defendant's properties authorized; Recovery Certificate issued.

Bank of Baroda versus Mrs. Pidathala Maheswari — Banking and Recovery | DRT (2026)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL.II AT HYDERABAD DATED THIS THE^gth DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶2

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

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No: 1087 AF 2025

¶4

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

¶5

.....Applicant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mrs. Pidathala Maheswari, Wo.^{Mr. Pidathala SureshBabu,} Aged 32 yrs, Female, Occ: Business, R/o. H No. 8-178, Palukur Village, Rama Krishna Puram, Banaganapalli Mandal, Nandyal Dist, A.P. 518176

¶8

.. . Defendant

¶9

Counsel for the Applicant : M/s. Trivikram Chitturu

¶10

Counsel for the Defendant

¶11

: Ex-parte

¶12

:: ORDER ::

¶13

The Applicant Bank filed the^present OA^for the^{recovery a total} sum of Rs. 23,14,8t4.86^ps with future^interest @10.80o/o^p.a. from the date of filling the application till the^{date of realization} along with costs and, in default,^{sale of OA hypothecated asset.}

¶14

Summon serued on Sole^{Defendant and was set expafteon} 09.03.2026 as called absent and^{no represen} tation/fu L/ #t

¶15

2 oA.NO.108712025

¶16

The Applicant Bank examined Mr. V. Chandraiah, Senior Manager, as AW-1 and marked 6 documents through him as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6.

¶17

Heard ex-pafte arguments from the Ld. Counsel of the Applicant Bank. Perused the material placed on record.

¶18

The point that arises for consideration is: -

¶19

Whether the Applicant Bank is entitled for the claim made in the OA against the Defendant and OA hypothecated asset?

¶20

As stated supra, the Defendant remained ex-pafte. The Evidence Affidavit coupled with the recitals in the documents viz., Exs.A.l to A.6 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

¶21

In the result, the present Original Application No.108712025 is allowed as under: -

¶22

i) The Sole Defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay to the Applicant Bank a sum Rs. 23,L4,8L4.86 ps with future interest @10.80o/o^p.a. simple from the date of application till the date of realization;

¶23

ii) the OA claim is secured by way of hypothecation of asset as described in the schedule annexed to the OA and the applicant bank is entitled to proceed against the same to realise its debt;

¶24

oA.NO.1o87l2O25

¶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 entitled for 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^{paftiesconcerned.}

¶30

(Dictated to the steno, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court^on this the 9tn Day of March, 2A26).

¶31

,*ffi:PRESIDING OFFICER

¶32

PRESIDING OFFICEROFFICER

Bank of Baroda v. Mrs. Pidathala Maheswari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank of Baroda v. Mrs. Pidathala Maheswari

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

State Bank of India versus Sri Jagannath Industries

Idbi Bank Ltd. versus Mrs. Pampari Ashwini

Bank of Maharashtra versus Mr. Bachalakura Raveenender

Bank of Maharashtra versus Sri. Priyanth Rao Nallapally

Bank of Baroda versus Mr. Pidathala Ramadasu

Bank of Baroda versus Mrs. Pidathala Eswaramma